'^>iPjv^: 


■;*^  ft 


jkjSSL^^ 


Stom  f^e  feifirarg  of 

(pxoftBBot  WtMdm  J^tnx^  (Breen  ^  .^  , 

Q$equeaf 3e^  6^  ^tm  fo  ^  '  * 

i^c  &t6rarg  of 

Qptinceton  ^^gecfo^tcctf  ^emtndr^ 

.c\si 

\'S\\ 

V.4- 


b* 


7^ 


■/ 


y 


THE 


FOUR  GOSPELS, 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GREEK, 


WITH 


PRELIMINARY    DISSERT ATIONS5 


AND 


NOTES  CRITICAL  AND  EXPLANATORY. 


BY  GEORGE  CAMPBELL,  D.D.  F.R.S.  EDINBURGH. 

Principal  of  the  Marischal  College,  Aberdeen, 


IN    FOUR    VOLUMES. 
VOL.  IV. 

WITH  THE  AUTHOR'S  LAST  CORRECTIONS. 
MONH  ©TTEON    TH   AAH0EIA. 


BOSTON  : 
PUBLISHED  BY  W.  WELLS,    AND  THOMAS  B.  WAIT  AND  CO. 

T.  B.  Wait  dr  Co.  Printers. 


1811. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


It  is  proper  to  observe  that,  in  the  following  Notes,  repetitions 
and  unnecessary  references  are,  as  much  as  possible,  avoided. 
When  an  useful  illustration  of  any  word  or  phrase  is  to  be  found 
in  the  Notes  on  one  of  the  succeeding  Gospels,  the  place  is  com. 
nionly  referred  to ;  not  so,  when  it  is  in  one  of  the  preceding, 
because  it  may  probably  be  remembered  ;  and  if  it  should  not, 
the  margin  of  the  text  will  direct  to  the  places  proper  to  be  con. 
suited.  But  when  the  explanation  of  a  term  occurs  in  the  Notes 
on  a  preceding  Gospel,  on  a  passage  not  marked  in  the  margin 
as  parallel,  the  place  is  mentioned  in  the  Notes.  In  words  which 
frequently  recur,  it  has  been  judged  convenient  to  adopt  the 
following 

ABBREVIATIONS. 


Al. 

Alexandrian  manuscript 

E.B. 

(English    Bible in 

(     common  use 

A  n 

(Anonymous  Eng. 
i     latiou  in  1729 

trans. 

An. 

E.T. 

(English  translation — 
f     the  same. 

Ar. 

Arias  Montanu^ 

Ara. 

Arabic 

Eng. 

English 

Arm. 

Armenian 

Er. 

Erasmus 

Be. 

Beza 

Eth. 

Ethiopic 

Beau. 

,    Beausobre  and  Lenfant 

Euth. 

Euthymius 

Ben. 

Bengelius 

Fr. 

French 

Cal. 

Calvin 

G.  E. 

,  Geneva  English 

Cam. 

Cambridge  manuscript 

G.  F. 

Geneva  French 

Cas. 

Castalio 

Ger. 

German 

Cha. 

Chaldee 

Go. 

Gothic 

Chr. 

Chrysostom 

Gr. 

Greek 

Com. 

Complutensian  edition 

Gro. 

Grotius 

Cop. 

Coptic 

Ham. 

Hammond 

Dio, 

Diodati 

Heb. 

Hebrew 

Diss. 

Dissertation 

Hey. 

Heylyn 

Dod. 

Doddridge 

J. 

John 

ABBREVIATIONS. 


Itc. 

Italic 

Sa. 

Saci 

Itn. 

Italian 

Sax. 

Saxou 

L. 

Luke 

Sc. 

Scott 

La. 

Latin 

Sep. 

Septuagint 

Lu. 

Luther 

Si. 

Simon 

L.  CI. 

Le  Clerc 

Sy. 

Syriac 

M.  G. 

Modern  Greek 

The. 

Theophylact 

Mr. 

Mark 

Vat. 

Vatican  manuscript 

MS. 

Manuscript 

Vul. 

Vulgate 

Mt. 

Matthew 

Wa. 

Wakefield 

N.  T. 

New  Testament 

Wes. 

Wesley 

0.  T. 

Old  Testament 

Wet. 

Wetstein 

P. 

Part 

Wh. 

Whitby 

P.  R. 

Port  Royal  translation 

Wor. 

Worsley 

Per. 

Persic 

Wy. 

Wynne 

Pise. 

Piscator 

Zu. 

Zuric  translation. 

Rh. 

Rhemish 

If  there  be  a  few  more  contractions  not  here  specified,  they  are 
such  only  as  are  in  pretty  general  use.  In  terms  which  occur  sel- 
domer,  the  words  are  given  at  length. 


NOTES 

CRITICAL    AND    EXPLANATORY. 


THE  GOSPEL  BY  MATTHEW. 


THE    TITLE. 


The  title,  neither  of  this,  nor  of  the  other,  histories  of  our 
Lord,  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  penmen.  But  it  is  manifest,  that 
the  titles  were  prefixed  in  the  earliest  times,  by  those  who  knew 
the  persons  by  whom,  and  the  occasions  on  which,  these  writ- 
ings were  composed.  For  the  sense  wherein  the  word  Gospel  is 
here  used,  see  Prel.  Diss.  V.  P.  II.  §  18. 

2  KdTcc  M«T,^«<ev,  according  to  Matthew^  of  Matthew^  or  bij 
Matthew.  These  are  synonymous,  as  has  been  evinced  from  the 
best  authorities.  Cas.  rendered  it  authore  Matthfeo,  properly 
enough.  Nor  is  this,  as  Be.  imagines,  in  the  least  repugnant  to  the 
claim  of  the  Evangelists  to  inspiration.  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to 
call  the  doctrine  with  which  he  was  inspired  his  Gospel.  Nor 
does  any  man  at  present  scruple  to  call  the  Epistles  written  by 
that  Apostle,  Paul's  Epistles. 

3  To  y-uru  MxrS-xtov  evxyysXiov.  I  have  preferred  this  to  every  other 
title,  because  it  is  not  only  the  briefest  and  the  simplest,  but  in- 
comparably the  oldest,  and  therefore  the  most  respectable.  All 
the  ancient  Gr.  MSS.  have  it.  The  titles  in  the  old  La.  version 
called  Itc.  were  simply  Evangelium  secundum  Matthceum — se- 
cundum  Marcum,  &c.  and  in  the  most  ancient  MSS.  and  even  edi- 
tions of  the  present  Vulgate  they  are  the  same.  From  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers,  both  Gr.  and  La.  it  appears  that  the  title  was  re- 
tained everywhere  in  the  same  simplicity,  as  far  down  as  the  fifth 
century.     Afterwards,  when,  through  a  vitiated  taste,  useless 


2  NOTES  ON  CH.  i. 

epithets  came  much  in  vogue,  some  couid  not  endure  the  naked- 
ness of  so  simple  a  title.  It  then  became  Sanctum  Jesu  Christi 
Evangelium  secundum  Matihaum,  S)C.  which  is  that  used  in  the 
Vul.  at  present.  The  N.  T.  printed  at  Alcala  (called  the  Com. 
plutensian  Polyglot)  is  the  first  Gr.  edition  wherein  a  deviation 
^as  made,  in  this  respect,  from  the  primitive  simplicity.  The 
title  is  there  in  conformity  to  the  Vulgate,  printed  along  with  it, 
Tfl  yMTcc  MxtS-xiov  uytot  evmyyiXiov.  This  mode  was  adopted  by  some 
subsequent  editors.  Most  of  the  translators  into  modern  lan- 
guages have  gone  farther,  and  prefixed  the  same  epithet  to  the 
name  of  the  writer.  Thus  Dio.  in  Itn.  //  santo  evangelio,  &c. 
secondo  S.  Matteo.  The  translators  of  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  Beau,  and 
L,  CI.  in  Fr.  Le  sainte  evangile,  &c.  selon  Saint  Matthieu. 
Our  translators  after  Lu.  have  not  given  the  epithet  to  the  Gos- 
pel, but  have  added  it  to  the  writer.  Yet  they  have  not  prefixed 
this  term  to  the  names  even  of  the  Apostles  in  the  titles  of  their 
Epistles.  In  this  I  think  they  are  singular.  The  learned  Wet. 
in  his  excellent  edition  of  the  Gr.  N.  T.  remarks,  thatfliough  the 
term  corresponding  to  Gospel  occurs  in  that  book  upwards  of 
seventy  times,  it  is  not  once  accompanied  with  the  epithet  holy. 

CHAPTER  I. 

1.  The  lineage^  E.  T.  The  book  of  the  generation.  B</3Ae5 
yfv£F£6>i.  This  phrase,  which  corresponds  to  the  Heb.  nnSm  ibd 
sepher  tholdoth^  is  supposed,  by  some,  to  be  the  title  of  the  first 
seventeen  verses  only  ;  by  others,  of  the  whole  book.  The  former 
in  effect  translate  it  as  I  have  done;  the  latter  The^History.  That 
in  the  first  of  these  senses,  and  also  for  an  account  of  progeny, 
the  Gr.  phrase  is  used  by  Hellenist  writers,  is  undeniable  ;  it  is  not 
so  clear  that  it  is  used  in  the  second,  for  a  narrative  of  a  man's 
life.  It  is  true  we  sometimes  find  it  where  it  can  mean  neither 
genealogy  nor  list  of  descendants,  as  in  that  phrase  in  the  Sep. 
B(/3Ao<;  yaeiTtedi  apxva  jtxi  ytn,  Gen.  ii.  4.  the  meaning  of  which  is, 
doubtless,  the  origin  and  gradual  /iroduction  of  the  universe, 
which  has  plainly  some  analogy,  though  a  remote  one,  to  an  ac- 
count of  ancestry.  The  quotations  that  have  been  produced 
on  the  other  side,  from  the  Pentateuch,  Judith,  and  the  Epistle 
of  .Tames,  do  not  appear  decisive  of  the  question.  Of  still  less 
weight  is  the  name  Sepher  toledath  Jesu^  given  to  paltry,  mo- 


CH.    I. 


S.  MATTHEW. 


dern,   Jewish  fictions,  written   in   opposition   to  the  Gospel  : 
though  this  also  has  been  urged  as  an  argument. 

2  Christy  Xf(5-o?,  without  the  article,  is  here  to  be  understood, 
not  as  an  appellative,  as  it  is  in  almost  all  other  places  of  the 
Gospel,  but  as  a  proper  name.  Into  this  use  it  came  soon  after 
our  Lord's  resurrection,  but  not  before.  Some  distinction  was 
necessary,  as  at  that  time  the  name  Jesiis  was  common  among 
the  Jews.     Diss.  V.  P.  IV.  §  7. 

3  Son^  hm  indefinitely,  not  m  uta  the  son  emphatically.  The 
sense  is  rightly  rendered  by  Cas.  prognati  Davide,  a  descendant 
of  David.  There  is  a  modesty  and  simplicity  in  the  manner  in 
which  the  historian  introduces  his  subject.  He  says  no  more 
than  is  necessary  to  make  his  readers  distinguish  the  person  of 
whom  he  speaks,  leaving  them  to  form  their  judgment  of  his  mis- 
sion and  character,  from  a  candid  but  unadorned  narration  of 
the  facts. 

2.  Ji/dah,  &c.  My  reason  for  preferring  the  O.  T.  ortho- 
graphy of  proper  names  you  have  Diss.  XII.  P.  III.  §  6,  &c. 

6.  Bi/  her  who  had  been  wife  of  Uriah.  Ex.  rjj?  th  Ov^ia. 
Literally,  Bj/  her  of  Uriah.  It  is  not  just  to  say  that  the  femi- 
nine  article  thus  used  denotes  the  zoife.  The  relation  is  in  this 
phrase  neither  expressed,  nor  necessarily  implied,  but  is  left  to 
be  supplied  from  the  reader's  knowledge  of  the  subject.  We 
have  no  idiom  in  English  entirely  similar.  That  which  comes 
nearest  is  when  we  give  the  names,  but  suppress  the  relation,  on 
account  of  its  notoriety.  Thus,  if  it  were  said,  that  David  had 
Solomon  by  Uriah's  IJathsheba,  every  body  would  be  sensible 
that  the  expression  docs  not  necessarily  imply  that  Bathsheba 
was  the  wife,  more  than  the  zsidow,  the  daughter,  or  even  the 
sister  of  Uriah.  We  have  an  instance  in  Mark  xvi.  1.  Mapia  '» 
m  Umi^h,  where  the  void  must  be  supplied  by  the  word  jttjjrjj^  mo. 
ther.  The  like  holds  of  the  masculine.  In  Acts,  i.  13.  Uku^s 
AA?)«<«,  must  be  supplied  by  i/©-,  son;  and  in  Luke,  vi.  16.  Iy,J«v 
IctKu^a,  by  cchx<piv,  brother.  What  therefore  is  really  implied, 
in  any  particular  case,  can  be  learnt  only  from  a  previous  ac- 
quaintance with  the  subject.  Hence  we  discover  that  the  ellipsis 
in  this  place  cannot  be  supplied  by  the  word  wife;  for  when 
Uriah  was  dead,  he  could  not  be  a  husband.  Those  therefore 
who  render  tx.  ryi<;  m  Ovpia  of  Uriah's  zeife,  charge  the  historian 


4  NOTES  ON  wi.  i. 

with  a  blunder  of  which  he  is  not  guilty,  and  mislead  careless 
readers  into  the  notion  that  Solomon  was  begotten  in  adultery. 
The  common  version  exhibits  the  sense  w  ith  sufficient  exactness. 

8,  Uzziah,  t«v  O^teiv.  So  the  Sep.  renders  this  name  in  Gr. 
2  Chr.  xxvi,  3.  Whereas  Ahaziah  is  by  them  rendered  Oy^o?!,t»i. 
Some  names  are  omitted  In  the  line,  in  whatever  way  it  be  ren- 
dered here;  for  though  Ahaziah  was  indeed  the  son  of  Joram, 
Uzziah  was  the  father  of  Jotham. 

11.  Some  copies  read,  Josiah  begat  Jehoiachin  ;  Jehoiachin 
had  Jeconiah,  &c.  and  this  reading  has  been  adopted  into  some 
editions.  But  there  is  no  authority  from  ancient  MSS.  transla- 
tions, or  commentaries,  for  this  reading,  which  seems  to  have 
sprung  from  some  over^zealous  transcriber,  who,  finding  that 
there  were  only  thirteen  in  either  the  second  series  or  the  third, 
has  thought  it  necessary  thus  to  supply  the  defect.  For  if  Je- 
hoiachin  be  reckoned  in  the  second  series,  Jeconiah  may  be  coun. 
ted  the  first  of  the  third,  and  then  the  whole  will  be  complete. 
But  as,  in  very  early  times,  the  Fathers  found  the  same  diffi- 
culty in  this  passage  which  we  do  at  present,  there  is  the  grea. 
test  ground  to  suspect  the  correction  above  mentioned. 

11,  12.  About  the  time  of  the  migration  into  Babylon.  After 
the  migration  into  Babi/lon,  cTrt  tjj?  f^-irotKeTtxi  ^xQvXm'^.  Mercc 
Tjjv  fitToiKca-tctv  BxSvPiHiv'^.  In  the  La.  versions,  the  word  i^troiKio-ix 
is  differently  translated.  The  Vul.  Arias,  and  Leo  de  Juda, 
render  \t  transmigration  Be.  transportation  Pise,  deportatio,  Er. 
Cal.  and  Cas.  exilium,  Lu.  in  Ger.  calls  it  gcfangmfg,  Dio.  in 
Itn.  cattivita.  Si.  and  L.  CI.  in  Fr.  transmigration.  G.  F.  P. 
R.  Beau,  and  Sa.  adopt  a  circumlocution,  employing  the  verb 
transporter.  The  E.  T.  says,  about  the  time  they  were  carried 
away  to  Babylon.  After  they  were  brought  to  Babylon.  In 
nearly  the  same  way  the  words  are  rendered  by  Sc.  Dod.  ren- 
ders them,  About  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity.  After 
the  Babylonish  captivity.  Wa.  says,  the  removal  to  Babylon. 
It  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  word  employed  by  the  sacred 
historian,  but  also  from  the  context,  that  he  points  to  the  act  of 
removing  into  Babylon,  and  not  to  the  termination  of  the  state 
wherein  the  people  remained  seventy  years  after  their  removal, 
as  the  event  which  concluded  the  second  epoch,  and  began  the 
third,  mentioned  in  the  17th  verse.     Whereas  the  I^a.  exilium. 


tu.  r.  S.  MATTHEW.  5 

Ger.  gefangitifg,  Itn,  catfivita,  and  Eng.  captivity^  express  the 
state  of  the  people  during  all  that  period,  and  by  consequence 
egregiously  misrepresent  the  sense.  They  make  the  author  say 
•what  is  not  true,  that  certain  persons  were  begotten  after,  who 
were  begotten  during,  the  captivity.  Further,  it  deserves  to  be 
remarked  that,  as  this  Apostle  wrote,  in  the  opinion  of  all  anti- 
quity, chielly  for  the  converts  from  Judaism,  he  carefully  avoid- 
ed giving  any  unnecessary  offence  to  his  countrymen.  The  terms 
cafitivify^  exile,  transportation,  subjection,  Avere  offensive,  and, 
with  whatever  truth  they  might  be  applied,  the  Jews  could  not 
easily  bear  the  application,  A  remarkable  instance  of  their  deli- 
cacy in  this  respect,  the  effect  of  national  pride,  we  have  in  J. 
Tiii.  33.  where  they  boldly  assert  their  uninterrupted  freedom 
and  independency,  in  contradiction  both  to  their  own  historians, 
and  to  their  own  experience  at  that  very  time.  This  humour  had 
led  them  to  express  some  disagreeable  events,  which  they  could 
not  altogether  dissemble,  by  the  softest  names  they  could  devise. 
Of  this  sort  is  /^sroiKsa-tu,  by  which  they  expressed  the  most  dire- 
ful calamity  that  had  ever  befallen  their  nation.  The  word  strict- 
ly signifies  no  more  than  passing  from  one  place  or  state  to  ano- 
ther. It  does  not  even  convey  to  the  mind  whether  the  change 
was  voluntary  or  forced.  For  this  reason  we  must  admit  that 
Be.  Pise.  Beau.  Sa.  and  the  E.  T.  have  all  departed,  though  not 
so  far  as  Cas.  Iai.  Dio,  and  Dod.  from  the  more  indefinite,  and 
therefore  more  delicate  expression  of  the  original,  and  even  from 
that  of  the  Vul.  from  which  Sa's  version  is  professedly  made. 
For  the  words  used  by  all  these  imply  compulsion.  Nor  let  it 
be  imagined  that,  hecsLuse  f^sToiKSTta  occurs  frequently  in  the^p. 
where  the  word  in  the  Heb.  signifies  captivity,  it  is  therefore  to 
be  understood  as  equivalent.  That  version  was  made  for  the  use 
of  Grecian  or  Hellenist  Jews,  who  lived  in  cities  where  Gr.  was 
the  vulgar  tongue;  and  as  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into 
the  language  of  the  place,  exposed  their  history  to  the  natives, 
they  were  the  more  solicitous  to  soften,  by  a  kind  of  euphemism, 
a  circumstance  so  humiliating  as  their  miserable  enthralment  to 
the  Babylonians.  For  this  reason,  that  event  is,  especially  in 
the  historical  part,  rarely  denominated  cuxf-tMXucnx  captivitas, 
and  never  hux-ofu^Tj  transportatio,  but  by  one  or  other  of  these 
gentler  names,  lurotKiu,  f^eroiy-ii^ix,,  etzreiKia,  and  xTToiKeviMy  colonia, 
migrntio,  demigratio^  incolatus  seu  habitatio  in  terra  alienn. 

VOL.    IV.  I. 


NOTES  ON 


en.  1. 


On  the  whole,  the  Vul.  Si.  L.  CI.  and  Wa.  have  hit  the  import 
of  the  original  more  exactly  than  any  of  the  other  translators 
above  mentioned.  I  did  not  think  the  term  transmigration  so 
proper  in  our  language,  that  word  being  in  a  manner  appropri- 
ated to  the  Oriental  doctrine  of  the  passage  of  the  soul,  after 
death,  into  another  body.  Emigration  is  at  present,  1  imagine, 
more  commonly  used,  when  the  removal  is  voluntary.  The  sim- 
ple term  migration  seems  fully  to  express  the  meaning  of  the 
original. 

\&.  Messiah^  Xpi^-oi.     For  the  import  of  the  word,  see  Diss. 
V.  P.  IV.  §  9. 

18.  Jesus  Christ.  The  Vul.  omits  Jesu,  and  is  followed  only 
by  the  Per.  and  Sax.  versions. 

19.  Being  a  worthy  man^  ^iKcti(^  m.  Some  would  have  the 
word  ^<K!«((^,  in  this  place,  to  signify  good-natured^  humane^ 
merciful ;  because,  to  procure  the  infliction  of  the  punishment 
denounced  by  the  law,  cannot  be  deemed  unjust^  without  im- 
peaching the  law.  Others  think  that  it  ought  to  be  rendered, 
according  to  its  usual  signification,  jhs/;  and  imagine  that  it 
was  the  writer's  intention  to  remark  two  qualities  in  Joseph's 
character;  first,  his  strict  justice,  which  would  not  permit  him 
to  live  with  an  adulteress  as  his  wife  ;  secondly,  his  humanity^ 
which  led  him  to  study  privacy,  in  his  method  of  dissolving  the 
marriage.  Herein,  say  they,  there  can  be  no  injustice,  because 
there  are  many  things,  both  for  compensation  and  punishment, 
which  the  law  entitles,  but  does  not  oblige,  a  man  to  exact. 
Though  this  interpretation  is  specious,  it  is  not  satisfactory ; 
for  if  the  writer  had  intended  to  express  two  distinct  qualities 
in  Joseph's  character,  which  drew  him  different  ways,  I  think 
he  would  have  expressed  himself  differently  ;  as  thus.  Though 
Joseph  was  a  just  man,  yet  being  unwilling,  &c.  whereas  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  connected  the  clauses,  seems  to  make 
the  latter  explanatory  of  the  former,  rather  than  a  contrast  to 
it.  It  has  indeed  been  said,  that  the  participle  m  sometimes 
admits  being  interpreted  though.  In  proof  of  this.  Mat.  vil. 
11.  and  Gal.  ii.  3.  have  been  qu-jted.  But  the  construction  is 
not  similar  in  either  passage.  Here  the  av  is  coupled  with  an- 
other participle  by  the  conjunction  scxt.  In  the  places  referred 
to,  it  is  immediately  followed  by  a  verb  in  the  indicative.     In 


en.  I. 


S.  MATTHEW. 


such  cases,  to  which  the  present  has  no  resemblance,  the  words 
connected  may  give  the  force  of  an  adversative  to  the  participle. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  have  not  seen  sufficient  evidence  for  ren. 
dering  ^ttcxia/;  humane  or  merciful :  for  though  these  virtues  be 
sometimes  comprehended  under  the  term,  they  are  not  specially 
indicated  by  it.  I  have  therefore  chosen  a  middle  way,  as  more 
unexceptionable  than  either.  Every  body  knows  that  the  word 
Sixxieg  admits  two  senses.  The  first  is  just^  in  the  strictest  ac- 
ceptation, attentive  to  the  rules  of  equity  in  our  dealings,  par- 
ticularly what  concerns  our  judicial  proceedings.  The  second 
is  righteous  in  the  most  extensive  sense,  including  every  es- 
sential part  of  a  good  character.  In  this  sense  it  is  equivalent, 
as  Chr.  remarks,  to  the  epithet  cvxptroiy  virtuous,  roorthy^  up. 
right.  And  in  this  not  uncommon  sense  of  the  word,  the  last 
clause  serves  io  exemplify  the  character,  and  not  to  contrast  it. 
'^  To  expose  her,  uvnii  '^rxpaSefyf^xTia-xi.  E.  T.  to  make  her 
a  public  example.  In  order  to  express  things  forcibly,  trans- 
lators often,  overlooking  the  modesty  of  the  original,  say  more 
than  the  author  intended.  It  has  not,  however,  been  sufficiently 
adverted  to,  in  this  instance,  that  by  extending  the  import  of 
the  word  7rxpx^eiyin,xTt(ra,t,  they  diminish  the  character  of  benig- 
nity ascribed,  by  the  historian,  to  Joseph.  It  was  not  the 
writer's  intention  to  say  barely,  that  Joseph  was  unwilling  to 
drag  her  as  a  criminal  before  the  judges,  and  get  the  ignominious 
sentence  of  death,  warranted  by  law,  pronounced  against  her, 
which  few  perhaps  would  have  done,  more  than  he;  but  that  he 
was  desirous  to  consult  privacy  in  the  manner  of  dismissing 
her,  that  he  might,  as  little  as  possible,  wound  her  reputation. 
The  word  appears  to  me  to  denote  no  more  than  making  the 
afiair  too  flagrant,  and  so  exposing  her  to  shame.  So  the  Syrian 
interpreter,  and  the  Arabian,  understood  the  term.  I  have 
therefore  chosen  here  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Vul.  Leo. 
and  Cal.  who  render  the  words,  ea/n  traducere,  rather  than 
that  of  Cast,  and  Pise,  who  render  them,  in  earn  exemplum 
edere,  and  earn  exemplum  faccre,  which  have  been  followed  by 
our  translators.  The  expressions  used  by  these  naturally  suggest 
to  our  minds  a  condemnation  to  suffer  the  rigour  of  the  law. 
Yet  the  original  word  seems  to  relate  solely  to  the  disgrace 
resulting  from  the  opinion  of  the  public,  and  not  to  any  other 
punishment,  corporal  or  pecuniary.     Infamy  is,  indeed,  a  com. 


8  NOTES  ON  CH.  t, 

mon  attendant  on  every  sort  of  public  punishment.  Hence  by  a 
synecdoche  of  a  part  for  the  whole,  it  has  been  sometimes  em. 
ployed  to  express  a  public  and  shameful  execution.  And  this 
has  doubtless  occasioned  the  difficulty.  But  that  it  is  frequently 
and  most  properly  used,  when  no  punishment  is  meant,  but  the 
publication  of  the  crime,  Raphelius,  in  his  notes  on  the  place, 
has,  by  his  quotations  from  the  most  approved  authors,  put  be- 
yond a  doubt.  I  shall  bring  one  out  of  many.  It  is  from  Poly- 
bius,  Legat.  88.  where  he  says,  H  $e  (rvyY.Xi{r(^  x?'^!^^^*)  '^"^  y-ottpw, 
ncti  /SyAo^evjj  riAPAAEirMATISAI  rsq  Vohniy  XTroKpariv  e^t^uXa  J)'? 
vv  T»frvve;)covreA  rcivrx.  "  The  senate  taking  the  opportunity,  and 
"  willing  to  expose  the  Rhodians,  published  their  answer,  where- 
"  of  these  are  the  heads."  I  shall  only  add,  that  Chr.  one  of 
the  most  eloquent  of  the  Gr.  fathers,  understood  this  passage  in 
the  Gospel  as  meaning  no  more ;  accurately  distinguishing  be- 
tween 7rxpcJeiyiu.xr((^eiv  and  KoXcc^eiv,  exposing  and  punishing. 
Thus  he  argues  concerning  Joseph's  conduct  on  this  trying  oc- 
casion :  Kciiroiys  a  nAPAAEIFMATISMOY  |ttovav  j;v  uTrevB-vy®^  ^  rai- 
otvrij-  mXXoc,  y-ctt  KOAAZE20AI  «fT-<v  a  voj«,(^  iKiXevev.  AAA'  o  luG-yj<p 
a  fMVov  To  f^et^ov  ex-eiva^  dXXct  kxi  ra  eXuTTon  (rvve^aipija-s,  rtjv  ccir^vvfiv' 
a  yxp  fwvav  a  KOAASAI,  uXX'  is^e  nAPAAEIFMATlSAI  iQaXiTo. 
"  Now  such  a  woman  (as  Mary  was  then  thought  to  be)  was 
"  not  only  exposed  to  shame,  but  also  by  law  subjected  to  Jiu- 
"  nishment.  Whereas  Joseph  not  only  remitted  the  greater  evil, 
*'  the  /lunishment,  but  the  less  also,  the  ignominy  :  for  he  deter- 
"  mined  not  only  not  to  punish,  but  not  even  to  expose  her." 
For  the  meaning  of  a  term  which  occurs  in  so  few  places  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  those  not  unfavourable  to  the  explanation  given,  a  term 
with  which  no  ancient  controversy  was  connected,  the  authority 
of  such  a  man  as  Chr.  is  justly  held  decisive.  The  verdict  of 
Euth.  is  in  effect  the  same.  This  also  is  the  sense  which  the 
translator  into  M.  G.  gives  the  term,  saying,  jtcjj  B-eXovroig  vx  t>)i» 
(pxys^ucri],  adding  as  an  illustration  on  the  margin,  vx  tjjv  Ttoture-^n^ 
to  defame  her. 

^  To  divo7'ce  her,  uTroXva-xt  xvrrsv.  In  the  N.  T.  the  word  xtto- 
Xv£iv  is  the  ordinary  term  for  divorcing  a  wife,  and  thereby  dis- 
solving the  marriage.  Nor  did  it  make  any  difference  in  the 
Jewish  commonwealth,  that  the  parties  Mere  only  betrothed  to 
each  other,  and  that  the  marriage  was  not  completed  by  cohabita- 


cH.  I.  S.  MATTHEW.  9 

tion.  From  the  moment  of  their  reciprocal  engagement,  all 
the  laws  in  relation  to  marriage  were  in  force  between  them.  He 
was  her  husband,  and  she  his  wife.  Her  infidelity  to  him  was 
adultery,  and  appointed  to  be  punished  as  such,  Deut.  xxii.  23, 
24.  In  comformity  to  this  is  the  style  of  our  Evangelist.  Joseph 
is  called,  v.  1€.  M-dry^ s  husband ;  she,  v.  20.  his  wife  ;  the  disso- 
lution of  their  contract  is  expressed  by  the  same  word  that  is 
uniformly  used  for  the  dissolution  of  marriage  by  the  divorce  of 
the  wife.  1  have  preferred  here,  and  in  other  places,  the  term 
divorcing^  to  that  of  putting  awajf.  The  latter  phrase  is  very 
ambiguous.  Men  are  said  to  put  azcai/  their  wives,  when  they 
put  them  out  of  their  houses,  and  will  not  live  with  them.  Yet 
the  marriage  union  still  subsists ;  and  neither  party  is  at  liberty 
to  marry  another.  This  is  not  what  is  meant  by  ci-sroXveiv  ri^y  yvvxu 
XX  in  the  Gospel.  Now  a  divorce  with  them  might  be  very 
private.  It  required  not,  as  with  us,  a  judicial  process.  The 
determination  of  the  husband  alone  was  sufficient.  Deut.  xxiv.  1, 
2.  The  utmost,  in  point  of  form,  required  by  the  rabbles,  (for 
the  law  does  not  require  so  much)  was  that  the  writing  should  be 
delivered  to  the  wife,  in  presence  of  two  subscribing  witnesses. 
It  was  not  even  necessary  that  they  should  know  the  cause  of  the 
proceeding.  They  were  called  solely  to  attest  the  fact.  Now 
as  the  instrument  itself  made  no  mention  of  the  cause,  and  as  the 
practice  of  divorcing,  on  the  most  trifling  pretences,  was  become 
common,  it  hardly  affected  a  woman's  reputation,  to  say,  that 
she  had  been  divorced.  I  should  in  some  places  prefer  the  term 
repudiate,  were  it  in  more  familiar  use. 

20.   J  messenger,  uyyeX(^.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  9,  Sec. 

22.  Verijied,  ^P^puSi,.  E.  T.  fulfilled.  Though  it  should  be 
admitted,  that  the  word  ■tTXvipu67i  is  here  used  in  the  strictest  sense, 
to  express  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy,  which  pointed  to  this 
single  event ;  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  general  import  of  the 
verb  -ss-Xtipouj  in  the  Gospel,  is  more  properly  expressed  by  the 
Eng.  verb  verifi/,  than  hyfuljil.  Those  things  are  said  Ts-Xr^pu^,. 
vxi,  which  are  no  predictions  of  the  future,  but  mere  affirmations 
concerning  the  present,  or  the  past.  Thus,  ch.  ii.  15.  a  decla- 
ration from  the  Prophet  Ilosea,  xi.  1.  which  God  made  in  rela- 
tion to  the  people  of  Israel,  whom  he  had  long  before  recalled 
from  Egypt,  is  applied  by  the  historian  allusively  to  Jesus  Christ, 


10  NOTES  ON  LR.  i, 

where  all  that  is  meant  is,  that,  with  equal  truth,  or  rather  with 
much  greater  energy  of  signification,  God  might  now  say,  I  have 
recalled  my  Son  out  of  Egypt.    Indeed  the  import  of  the  Greek 
phrase,  as  commonly  used  by  the  sacred  writers,  is  no  more,  as 
L.  CI.  has  justly  observed,  than  that  such  words  of  any  of  the 
Prophets  may  be  applied  with  truth  to  such  an  event.     For  it  is 
even  used,  where  that  which  is  said  to  be  fulfilled  is  not  a  pro- 
phecy,   but  a  command  ;  and  Avhere  the  event  spoken  of  is  not 
the  obedience  of  the  command  (though  the  term  is  sometimes 
used  in  this  sense  also),  but  an  event  similar  to  the  thing  requir- 
ed ;  and  which,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  tallies  with  the  words. 
Thus,  in  the  directions  given  about  the  manner  of  preparing  the 
paschal  lamb,  it  is  said,  Exod.  xii.  46.  Nofie  of  his  bones  shall 
be  broken.    This  saying  the  Evangelist  J.  xix.  36,  finds  verified 
in  what  happened  to  our  Lord,  when  the  legs  of  the  criminals, 
who  were  crucified  with  him,  were  broken,  and  his  were  spared. 
'  But  were  not  the  recal  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  and  the  ceremo- 
*  nies  of  the  passover,  typical  of  what  happened  to  our  Lord?'  I 
admit  they  were.     But  it  is  not  the  correspondence  of  the  anti- 
type to  the  type,  that  we  call  properly  fulfilling  :  this  English 
word,  if  I  mistake  not,  is,  in  strictness,  applied  only,  either  to 
an  event  to  which   a  prophecy  directly  points,  or  to  the  perfor- 
mance of  a  promise.    Whereas  the  Greek  word  is  sometimes  em- 
ployed in  Scripture  to  denote  little  more  than  a  coincidence  in 
sound.     In  this  sense  I  think  it  is  used,  ch.  ii.  23.     We  have  an 
instance  of  its  being  employed  by  the  Seventy,  to  denote  verify. 
i7ig,  or  confirming,  the  testimony  of  one,  by  the  testimony  of 
another,  1  Kings,  i.  14.     The  y/ovA  fulfilling,  in  our  language, 
has  a  much  more  limited  signification  :  and  to  employ  it  for  all 
those  purposes,  is  to  give  a  handle  to  cavillers,  where  the  origi- 
nal gives  none.    It  makes  the  sacred  penmen  appear  to  call  those 
things  predictions,  which  plainly  were  not,  and  which  they  never 
meant  to  denominate  predictions.     The  most  apposite  word  that 
I  could  find  in  English  is  verify;  for,  though  it  will  not  answer 
in  every  case,  it  answers  in  more  cases  than  any  other  of  our  verbs. 
Thus,  a  prophecy  is  verified  (for  the  word  is  strictly  applicable 
here  also),  when  it  is  accomplished  ;  a  promise,  when  it  is  per- 
formed; a  testimony,  when  it  is  confirmed  by  additional  testimo- 
ny, or  other  satisfactory  evidence  ;  a  maxim  or  proverb,  when  it 
is  exemplified ;  a  declaration  of  any  kind  may  be  said  to  be  veri- 


CH.  I- 


S,  MATTHEW.  li 


fied  by  any  incident  to  which  the  words  can  be  applied.  I  ac- 
knowledge that  this  word  does  not,  in  every  case,  correspond  to 
yrXvifoa.  A  law  \%  fulfilled^  not  verified  ;  and  if  the  import  of  the 
passage  be  to  denote  that  additional  strength  is  given  to  it,  it  is 
better  to  say  conjirmed,  or  ratified.  In  some  places  it  means  to 
j^// ?/p,  in  others  to  perfect^  in  others  to  make  known.  Thus 
much  I  thought  it  necessary  to  observe,  in  regard  to  my  frequent 
use  of  a  verb  which  is  but  rarely  to  be  found  in  other  Eng.  trans- 
lations. 

2  hx  crAjjpw^s},  literally,  that  it  might  be  verijied.  The  conjunc- 
tion, in  all  such  cases,  denotes  no  more,  than  that  there  was  as 
exact  a  conformity  between  the  event  and  the  passage  quoted,  as 
there  could  have  been,  if  the  former  had  been  efl'ected,  merely 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  latter.  God  does  not  bring  about 
an  event,  because  some  Prophet  had  foretold  it :  but  the  Prophet 
was  inspired  to  foretel  it,  because  God  had  previously  decreed 
the  event.  If  such  particles  as  hx,  or  oTrui,  were  to  be  always 
rigorously  interpreted,  we  should  be  led  into  the  most  absurd 
conclusions.  For  instance,  we  should  deduce  from  J.  xix,  24. 
that  the  Roman  soldiers.  Pagans,  who  knew  nothing  of  holy 
writ,  acted,  in  dividing  our  Lord's  garments,  and  casting  lots  for 
his  vesture,  not  from  any  desire  of  sharing  the  spoil,  but  purely 
with  a  view  that  the  Scriptures  relating  to  the  Messiah  might  be 
fulfilled ;  for  it  is  said  that  they  resolved  on  this  measure,  tvx  v 
ypxtpj]  -yrMpt^h  jj'  Xsyairx. — See  note  on  ch.  viii.  17. 

^  In  all  this — was  verijied.  thto  h  oMi  yeyovev  Ivx  Try^tipuB^.  Chr. 
and  some  others  have  considered  this  and  v,  23.  as  spoken  by 
the  angel  to  Joseph;  I  consider  these  verses  as  containing  a  re- 
mark of  the  evangelist.  By  messages  from  heaven,  particular 
orders  are  communicated,  and  particular  revelations  given.  But 
I  do  not  find  this  method  taken,  for  teaching  us  how  to  interpret 
former  revelations  :  whereas  such  applications  of  scripture  are 
common  with  the  evangelists,  and  with  none  more  than  with  Mt, 
The  very  phrase  t»7«  S{  oAsv  yfyovtv,  with  which  this  is  introduced, 
he  repeatedly  employs  in  other  places,  (ch.  xxi.  4.  xxvi.  56.) 
Add  to  all  this,  that  the  interpretation  given  of  the  name  Imma- 
nuel,  God  with  us,  is  more  apposite,  in  the  mouth  of  a  man,  than 
in  that  of  an  angel. 

23.  The  virgin,  -k  TrxpB'ev^.  I  do  not  say  that  the  article  is 
always  emphatical^  though  it  is  generally  so  ;  or  that  there  is  a 


f 


1^  NOTES  OX  tH.  I. 

particular  emphasis  on  it,  in  this  passage,  as  it  stands  in  the  Gos- 
pel. But  the  words  are  in  this  place  a  quotation  :  and  it  is  pro. 
per  that  the  quotation  should  be  exhibited,  when  warranted  by 
the  orijjinal.  as  it  is  in  the  book  quoted.  Both  the  Sep.  and  the 
Heb.  in  the  passage  of  Isaiah  referred  to,  introduce  the  name  -cir- 
gin  with  the  article  :  and  as  in  this  they  have  been  copied  by  the 
Evangelist,  the  article  ought  doubtless  to  be  preseryed  in  the 
translation. 

25.  Her  first-horn  son,  rav  [)<«>  ayr*^  Te»  7ri»raT««v.  As  there 
were  certain  prerogatives,  which,  by  the  Jewish  constitution,  be- 
longed to  primogeniture,  those  entitled  to  the  prerogatives  were 
invariably  denominated  thejirst-born,  whether  the  parents  had 
issue  afterwards  or  not.  Nothing,  therefore,  in  relation  to  this 
point,  can  be  inferred  from  the  epithet  here  used.  The  turn 
which  Mr.  Wes.  and  others,  have  given  the  expression  in  their 
Tersions,  her  son,  the  first-born^  though  to  appearance  more  lite- 
ral, is  neither  so  natural  nor  so  just  as  the  common  translation. 
It  is  tounded  on  the  repetition  of  the  article  before  the  word^rs^- 
born.  But  is  it  possible  that  they  should  not  have  observed,  that 
nothing  is  more  common  in  Gr.  when  an  adjective  follows  its 
substantive,  especially  if  a  pronoun  or  other  word  intervene,  than 
to  repeat  the  article  before  the  adjective  r  This  is  indeed  so  com- 
mon, that  it  is  accounted  an  idiom  of  the  tongue,  insomuch  that, 
where  it  is  omitted,  there  appears  rather  an  ellipsis  in  the  ex- 
pression. Sc.  in  his  notes  on  this  verse,  has  produced  several 
parallel  expressions  from  Scripture,  which  it  would  be  ridiculous 
to  translate  in  the  same  manner  ;  and  which  therefore  clearly 
evince  that  there  is  no  emphasis  in  the  idiom. 

2  In  regard  to  the  preceding  clause,  Joseph  knezc  her  not,  un- 
til f«5  h'  ;  all  we  can  say,  is,  that  it  does  not  necessarily  imply 
his  knowledge  of  her  afterwards.  That  the  expression  suggests 
the  affirmative  rather  than  the  negative,  can  hardly  be  denied  by 
any  candid  critic.  The  quotations,  produced  in  support  of  the 
contrary  opinion,  are  not  entirely  similar  to  the  case  in  hand, 
as  has  been  proved  by  Dr.  Wh.  in  his  commentary.  And  as 
there  appears  here  no  Hebraism,  or  peculiarity  of  idiom,  to  vin- 
dicate our  giving  a  different  turn  to  the  clause,  I  cannot  approve 
Beau.'s  manner  of  rendering  it,  though  not  materially  different 
in  sense :  .^fais  il  ne  I'avoit point  connu  lors  qirelle  mit  au  mondc 
son  fils  premier  nS,     The  P.  R.  translation  and  Si.'s  are  to  the 


CH.  1 1.  S.  MATTHEW.  13 

same  purpose.  The  only  reason  -which  a  translator  could  have 
here  for  this  slight  deviation,  was  a  reason  which  cannot  be  jus- 
tified ;  to  render  the  Evangelist's  expression  more  favourable,  or 
at  least  less  unfavourable,  to  his  own  sentiments.  But  there  is 
this  good  lesson  to  be  learnt,  even  from  the  manner  wherein 
some  points  have  been  passed  over  by  the  sacred  writers ;  name. 
ly,  that  our  curiosity  in  regard  to  them  is  impertinent ;  and  that 
our  controversies  concerning  them  savour  little  of  the  know- 
ledge, and  less  of  the  spirit,  of  the  Gospel. 


CHAPTER  II. 

1.  Eastern  Magians^  (.ucyoi  uto  avetTo>Mv.     E.  T.  tcise  men 
from  the  East;  rendering  the  word  /w-aye/,  as  though  it  were  sy- 
nonymous with  (ro<poi.     This  is  not  only  an  indefinite,  but  an  im- 
proper version  of  the  term.    It  is  indefinite,  because  those  called 
f-utyoi,  were  a  particular  class,  party,  or  profession  among  the 
Orientals,  as  much  as  Stoics,  Peripatetics,  and  Epicureans,  were 
among  the  Greeks.     They  originated  in  Persia,  but  afterwards 
spread  into  other  countries,  particularly  into  Assyria  and  Ara- 
bia, bordering  upon  Judea  on  the  East.     It  is  probable  that  the 
Magians  here  mentioned  came  from  Arabia.     Now  to  employ  a 
term  for  specifying  one  sect,  which  may,  with  equal  propriety, 
be  applied  to  fifty,  of  totally  diflfereut,  or  even  contrary,  opi. 
nions,  is  surely  a  vague  manner  of  translating.    It  is  also,  in  the 
present  acceptation  of  the  word,  improper.      Formerly  the  term 
zci'se  men  denoted  philosophers,  or  men  of  science  and  erudition  ; 
if  is  hardly  ever  used  so  now,  unless  in  burlesque,     Dod,  per- 
haps comes  nearer,  in  using  the  term  sages  :  as  this  term  is  some- 
times appropriated,  though  seldom  seriously  in  prose,  to  men  of 
study  and  learning  :  but  it  is  still  too  indefinite  and  general,  since 
it  might  have  been  equally  applied  to  Indian  Bramins,   Gr.  phi- 
losophers and  many  others  ;  whereas  the  term  here  employed  is 
applicable  to  one  sect  only.     This  is,  therefore,  one  of  those  ca- 
ses wherein  the  translator,  that  he  may  do  justice  to  his  author, 
and  not  mislead  his  readers,  is  obliged  to  retain  the  original  term. 
Diss,  VIII.  P,  II,  §  1.     Sc.  and  others  say  Magi ;  I  have  pre- 
ferred Prideaux's  term  Magians  ;  both  as  having  more  the  form 
of  an  Eng.  word,  and  as  the  singular  Magian.  for  which  there  is 

VOL.  IV.  2 


14  NOTES  ON  cH.  ij. 

occasion  in  another  place,  is  much  better  adapted  to  our  ears., 
especially  when  attended  with  an  article,  than  Mtfgiis.  The  stu- 
dies  of  the  Magians  seem  to  have  lien  principally  in  astronomy, 
natural  philosophy,  and  theology.  It  is  from  them  we  derive 
the  terms  mugic  and  magician^  words  which  were  doubtless  used 
originally  in  a  good,  but  are  now  always  used  in  a  bad,  sense.- 

2.  JVe  have  seen  his  star  in  the  east  country^  stSofc^v  uvm  ras 
ctTi^ct,  ev  T>}  xvxroXti.  E.  T.  we  have  sben  his  star  in  the  East.  To 
see  either  star  or  meteor  in  the  East,  means  in  Eng.  to  see  it  in 
the  east  quarter  of  the  heavens,  or  looking  eastwards.  But  this 
is  not  the  Apostle's  meaning  here.  The  meaning  here  manifestly 
is,  that  when  the  Magians  themselves  were  in  the  East,  they  saw 
the  star.  So  far  were  they  from  seeing  the  star  in  the  East,  ac- 
cording to  the  Eng.  acceptation  of  the  phrase,  that  they  must 
have  seen  it  in  the  West,  as  they  were,  by  its  guidance,  brought 
out  of  the  east  country  westwards  to  Jerusalem.  Thus  the  plural 
of  the  same  word,  in  the  preceding  verse,  signifies  the  countries  ly- 
ing east  from  Judea,  f^^uyot  xtto  amroXa)!.  Some  render  the  phrase 
fv  Tsj  «v«£TeA«,  at  its  rise.  But,  1st,  The  words  in  that  case  ought 
to  have  been,  cv  tjj  xvxtoXi}  civth;  2dly,  The  term  is  never  so  ap- 
plied in  Scripture  to  any  of  the  heavenly  luminaries,  except  the 
sun  ;  3dly,  It  is  very  improbable  that  a  luminous  body,  formed 
solely  for  guiding  the  Magians  to  Bethlehem,  would  appear  to 
perform  the  diurnal  revolution  of  the  heavens  from  East  to  West. 
The  expression  used  in  Lu's  version,  tnt  tnorgenlanttc,  coincides 
entirely  with  that  here  employed. 

"  To  do  him  homage^  '^poo-Kvr/io-cn  ctvra.  The  homage  of  pros- 
tration, which  is  signified  by  this  Gr.  word,  in  sacred  authors, 
as  well  as  in  profane,  was,  throughout  all  Asia,  commonly  paid 
to  kings  and  other  superiors,  both  by  Jews  and  by  Pagans.  It 
was  paid  by  Moses  to  his  father-in-law,  Exod.  xviii.  7.  called  in 
the  E.  T.  obeisance.  The  instances  of  this  application  are  so 
numerous,  both  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  the  N.  as  to  render  more 
quotations  unnecessary.  When  God  is  the  object,  the  word  de- 
notes adoration  in  the  highest  sense.  In  old  Eng.  the  term  wor- 
ship was  indifl'erently  used  of  both.    It  is  not  commonly  so  now. 

4.  The  chief  priests,  t»?  ccpx'^P^"^-  By  the  term  up^u^ni,  chief 
/iriesfs,  in  the  N.  T.  is  commonly  meant,  not  only  those  who 
were,  or  had  been  high  priests  (for  this  office  was  not  then,  as 


CH.  H.  S.  MATTHEW.  U 

formerly,  for  life),  but  also  the  heads  of  the  twenty.four  cour- 
ses, or  sacerdotal  families,  into  which  the  whole  priesthood  was 
divided. 

^  Scribes  of  the  people,  •ypecf^./Mtrem  m  Xcts ;  the  men  of  letters, 
interpreters  of  the  law,  and  instructers  of  the  people, 

5.  Bethlehem  ofJudea,  Bn^Xupt  t>,?  InSxteti.  Vul.  both  here  and 
V.  1.  Bethlehem  Judcp,  this  reading  has  no  support  from  either 
MSS.  or  versions,  and  appears  to  be  a  conjectural  emendation 
of  Jerom,  suggested  by  the  Heb.  of  the  Nazarenes. 

6.  In  the  canton  of  Judah,  yn  la^x.  E.  T.  in  the  land  of  J u- 
da.  The  word  yjj,  without  the  article  joined  to  the  name  of  a 
tribe,  also  without  the  article,  denotes  the  canton  or  territory 
assigned  to  that  tribe.  In  this  sense,  yj?  Zx^uPmv,  and  yn  H£(p3-ec. 
?^eift.,  occur  in  ch.  iv.  15.  As  the  land  of  Judah  might  be  under, 
stood  for  the  country  of  Judea,  I  thought  it  proper  to  distin- 
guish in  the  version  things  sufficiently  distinguished  in  the  original. 

^  Art  not  the  least  illustrious  among  the  cities  of  Judah,  a^a. 
fwi  eXxpc'^^}  el  Ev  re/5  ■»yei^o<riy  la^cc.  E,  T.  Art  not  the  least  among 
the  princes  of  Judah.  The  term  inysy.m,  in  this  place,  denotes 
illustrious,  eminent.  The  metaphor  ^j/ /nee,  applied  to  city,  is 
rather  harsh  in  modern  languages.  It  is  remarked,  that  this 
quotation  agrees  not  exactly  either  with  the  Heb.  text,  or  with 
the  Gr.  version.  There  appears  even  a  contradiction  in  the  first 
clause  to  both  these,  as  in  them  there  is  no  negative  particle. 
The  most  approved  way  of  reconciling  them,  is  by  supposing  that 
the  words  in  the  Prophet  are  an  interrogation,  which,  agreeably  to 
the  idiom  of  most  languages,  is  equivalent  to  a  negation.  On 
this  hypothesis  we  must  read  in  the  O.  T.  Art  thou  the  least  ? 
And  in  written  language,  an  interrogation  is  not  always  to  be 
distinguished  from  a  declaration  ;  though  in  speaking  it  may,  by 
the  emphasis,  be  clearly  distinguishable.  But,  whatever  be  in 
this,  it  ought  to  be  observed,  that  the  quotation  is  only  reported 
by  the  Evangelist,  as  part  of  the  answer  returned  to  Herod,  by 
the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes. 

7.  Procured  from  them  exact  information,  ijKpi^ao-e  ^xp* 
avTut.  E.  T.  Inquired  of  them  diligently.  In  conformity  to  this 
is  the  greater  part  of  modern  translations.  The  Vul,  renders  it 
diligenter  didicit  ab  eis,  making  very  rightly  the  import  of  the 
verb  cticei^ou  to  lie  chiefly,  not  in  the  diligence  of  the  inquiry, 


16  NOTES  OJS  €H.  II. 

but  in  the  success  of  it.  Agreeable  to  this  are  most  of  the  an- 
cient versions,  particularly  the  Sy.  and  the  Ara.  Dod.  and  Sc. 
have  preferred  these,  and  rendered  the  words,  Got  exact  infor~ 
mation  from  them.  That  this  is  more  comformable  to  the  import 
of  the  word,  is  evident  from  v.  16.  where  Herod  makes  use  of  the 
information  he  had  gotten,  for  directing  his  emissaries  in  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  bloody  purpose  on  Avhich  they  were  sent ;  accor. 
ding  to  the  time  (as  our  translators  express  it)  zehich  he  had  dil- 
igently inquired  of  the  wise  men.  This  is  not  perfectly  intelligi. 
ble.  It  could  not  be  the  questions  put  by  Herod,  but  the  an- 
swers  returned  by  the  Magians,  which  could  be  of  use  for  direct, 
ing  them.  But,  though  the  versions  of  Sc.  and  Dod.  are  prefera- 
ble to  the  common  one,  they  do  not  hit  entirely  the  meaning  of 
the  Gr.  word.  It  signifies,  indeed,  to  get  exact  information, 
but  not  accidentally,  or  anyhow  ;  it  is  only  in  consequence  of 
inquiry,  or  at  least  of  means  used  on  the  part  of  the  informed. 
Be.  has  not  badly  rendered  the  verb,  exquisivif,  searched  out, 
denoting  both  the  means  employed,  and  the  effect.  The  better  to 
show  that  this  was  his  idea,  he  has  given  this  explanation  in  the 
margin,  Certo  et  explorate  cognovit. 

12.  Being  warned  in  a  dream,  ;^Jf;}j^t,«T/5■^lvTe?  x«t'  emp.  E.  T. 
Being  reamed  of  God  in  a  dream.  With  this  agree  some  ancient, 
and  most  modern,  translations,  introducing  the  term  I'esponsCy 
oracle,  divinity,  or  something  equivalent.  The  Syr.  has  preserv- 
ed  the  simplicity  of  the  original,  importing  only,  it  was  signified 
to  them  in  a  dream,  and  is  followed  by  L.  CI.  That  the  warn, 
ing  came  from  God,  there  can  be  no  doubt:  but  as  this  is  not 
expressed,  but  implied,  in  the  original,  it  ought  to  be  exhibited 
in  the  same  manner  in  the  version.  What  is  said  explicitly  in 
the  one,  should  be  said  explicitly  in  the  other;  what  is  conveyed 
only  by  implication  in  the  one,  should  be  conveyed  only  by  im- 
plication in  the  other.  Now  that  x,P^fj,c<.Tt^m  does  not  necessarily 
imply  from  God,  more  than  the  word  learning  does,  is  evident 
from  the  reference  which,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  classical, 
it  often  has  to  inferior  agents.  See  Acts  x.  22.  where  the  name 
of  God  is  indeed  both  unnecessarily  and  improperly  introduced 
in  the  translation,  xi.  26.  Rom.  vii.  3.  Heb.  xii,  25.  For  Pagan 
authorities,  see  Raphelius. 


CH.  II.  S.  MATTHEW.  17 

16.  Deceived,  cvcvuix^>i.  E.  T.  mocked.  In  the  Jewish  style, 
we  find  often  that  any  treatment  which  appears  disrespectful, 
comes  under  the  general  appellation  of  mockeri/.  Thus,  Poti- 
phar's  wife,  in  the  false  accusation  she  preferred  against  Joseph, 
of  making  an  attempt  upon  her  chastity,  says  that  he  came  in  to 
mock  her.  Gen.  xxxix.  17.  E|M.5r«<|«(  is  the  word  employed  by 
the  Seventy.  Balaam  accused  his  ass  of  mocking  him,  when  she 
would  not  yield  to  his  direction.  Num.  xxii.  29.  And  Dalilah 
said  to  Samson,  Jud.  xvi.  10.  Thou  hast  mocked  (that  is,  dcceiv-  . 
ed)  me,  and  told  me  lies.  As  one  who  deceived  them,  appeared 
to  treat  them  contemptuously,  they  were  naturally  led  to  express 
the  former  by  the  latter.  But  as  we  cannot  do  justice  to  the 
original,  by  doing  violence  to  the  language  which  we  write,  I 
thought  it  better  to  give  the  sense  of  the  author,  than  servilely 
to  trace  his  idiom. 

^  The  male  children,  rm  Tcci^xi.  Thus  also  Dod.  and  others. 
E.  T.  The  children.  Sc.  follows  this  version,  but  says  in  the 
notes,  "  Perhaps  male  children  ;"  adding,  "  Not  that  the  mas- 
*'  culine  article  ry;  excludes  female  children  :  for  had  our  histo- 
"  rian  intended  to  include  both  sexes  under  one  word,  Tz-a'Joti,  he 
"  would  have  prefixed  the  masculine  article  as  now."  But  how 
does  he  know  that?  In  support  of  his  assertion,  he  has  not  pro- 
duced a  single  example.  He  has  shewn,  indeed,  what  nobody 
doubts,  that  as  -Troiiq  is  of  the  common  gender,  the  addition  of 
upf*i'»  or  ^vtXv  serves  to  distinguish  the  sex  without  the  article- 
But  it  is  also  true,  that  the  attendance  of  the  article  o  or  »;'  an- 
swers the  purpose,  without  the  addition  of  «^^j)v  or  !h)Xv.  Pueri 
and  puelhe  are  not  more  distinguished  by  the  termination  in  La- 
tin, than  01  TTxi^ci  and  ui  ■ptm^h  are  distinguished  by  the  article  in 
Greek.  I  do  not  deny,  that  there  may  be  instances  wherein  the 
term  o<  Treuhi,  like  o<  om/,  may  mean  children  in  general.  The 
phrase,  both  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek,  is  the  sons  of  Israel, 
which  our  translators  render,  the  children  of  Israel,  as  nobouy 
doubts  that  the  whole  posterity  is  meant.  We  address  an  audi- 
ence of  men  and  women  by  the  title  brethren  ;  and  under  the  de- 
nomination, all  men,  the  whole  species  is  included.  But  in  sucli 
examples,  the  universality  of  the  application  is  either  previously 
known  from  common  usage,  or  is  manifest  from  the  subject  or 
occasion.  Where  this  cannot  be  said,  the  words  ought  to  be 
strictly  interpreted.     Add  to  this,  1st,  That  the  historian  seems 


18  NOTES  ON  CH.  lu 

here  purposely  to  have  changed  the  term  veuSm^  which  is  used 
for  ddld  no  fewer  than  nine  times  in  this  chapter;  as  that  word 
being  neuter,  and  admitting  only  the  neuter  article,  was  not  fit 
for  marking  the  distinction  of  sexes  ;  and  to  have  adopted  a  term 
which  he  no  where  else  employs  for  infants,  though  frequently 
for  men-servants,  and  once  for  youths  or  boys  :  2dly,  That  the 
reason  of  the  thing  points  to  the  interpretation  I  have  given.  It 
made  no  more  for  Herod's  purpose  to  destroy  female  children, 
than  to  massacre  grown  men  and  women ;  and,  tyrant  though  he 
was,  that  he  meant  to  go  no  farther  than,  in  his  way  of  judging, 
his  own  security  rendered  expedient,  is  evident  from  the  instruc- 
tions he  gave  to  his  emissaries,  in  regard  to  the  age  of  the  infants 
to  be  sacrificed  to  his  jealousy,  that  they  might  not  exceed  such 
an  age,  or  be  under  such  another. 

^  From  those  entering  the  second  year ^  down  to  the  time,  utto 
SuTHi  y.xi  KxTuTe^u,  Kxrot,  rvt  x,?ovoy.  E.  T.  From  two  years  old 
and  under,  according  to  the  time.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that 
in  this  direction  Herod  intended  to  specify  both  the  age  above 
which,  and  the  age  under  which,  infants  were  not  to  be  involved 
in  this  massacre.  But  there  is  some  scope  for  inquiry  into  the 
import  of  the  description  given.  Were  those  of  the  second  year 
included,  or  excluded  by  it  ?  By  the  common  translation  they 
are  included  ;  by  that  given  above,  excluded.  Plausible  things 
may  be  advanced  on  each  side.  The  reasons  which  have  deter- 
mined me,  areas  follows.  The  word  herij^  is  one  of  those  which, 
in  scriptural  criticism,  we  call  <»9r«|  Afyofteva.  It  occurs  in  no 
•other  place  of  the  N.  T.  nor  in  the  Sep.  It  is  explained  by  He- 
sychius  and  Phavorinus,  that  which  lives  a  whole  year,  ^t  oXa  rx 
£T»5.  AuTt]<ri(^  is  also  explained  in  our  common  lexicons,  per 
totum  annum  durans,  anniversarius  :  and  the  verb  Surt^u  is 
used  by  Aristotle  for  living  a  whole  year.  At  the  same  time  it 
must  be  owned,  that  the  explanation  bitnulus,  biennis,  is  also 
given  to  the  word  ^isTr,^.  The  term  is  therefore  doubtless  equi. 
vocal ;  but  what  weighs  with  me  here  principally  is,  the  ordinary 
method  used  by  the  Jews  in  reckoning  time;  which  is  to  count 
the  imperfect  days,  months,  or  years,  as  though  they  were  com. 
plete,  speaking  of  a  period  begun,  as  if  it  were  ended.  Thus  it 
is  said,  Gen.  xvii.  12.  The  child  that  is  eight  days  old  among 
you  shall  be  circumcised ;  and  Lev.xii.  3.  On  the  eighth  day  he 
shall  be  circumcised.     N6w  it  is  evident,  that  in  the  way  this 


cH.  11.  S.  MATTHEW.  19 

precept  was  understood,  it  behoved  them  often  to  circumcise  their 
children  when  they  were  not  seven  days  old,  and  never  to  wait 
till  they  were  eight.  For  the  day  of  the  birth,  however  little  of 
it  remained,  was  reckoned  the  first;  and  the  day  of  the  circum- 
cision, however  little  of  it  was  spent,  was  reckoned  the  eighth. 
But  nothing  can  set  this  matter  in  a  stronger  light  than  what  is 
recorded  of  our  Lord's  death  and  resurrection.  We  are  told  by 
himself,  that  he  was  to  be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  bo- 
som of  the  earth ;  that  his  enemies  would  kill  him,  and  that  after 
three  days  he  would  rise  again.  Yet  certain  it  is,  that  our  Lord 
was  not  two  days,  or  forty-eight  hours  (though  still  part  of  three 
days),  under  the  power  of  death.  lie  expired  late  on  the  sixth 
day  of  the  week,  and  rose  early  on  the  first  of  the  ensuing  week. 
Both  these  considerations  lead  me  to  conclude,  with  Wh.  and 
Dod.  that  Ilerod,  by  the  instructions  given  to  his  messengers, 
meant  to  make  the  highest  limit  of  their  commission,  those  enter- 
ing, not  finishing  the  second  year.  The  lowest  we  are  not  told, 
but  only  that  it  was  regulated  by  the  information  he  had  receiv- 
ed from  the  Magians  ;  for  this  I  take  to  be  the  import  of  the 
clause,  KXTet.  Tflv  ;^;f«vov.  He  had  probably  concluded,  that  the  star 
did  not  appear  till  the  birth,  though  they  might  not  see  it  on  its 
first  appearance,  and  that,  therefore,  he  could  be  in  no  danger 
from  children  born  long  before,  or  at  all  after,  it  had  been  seen 
by  them.  Supposing  then,  it  had  appeared  just  half  a  year  be- 
fore he  gave  this  cruel  order,  the  import  would  be,  that  they 
should  kill  none  above  tvvelve  months  old,  or  under  six. 

18.  In  Ramah,  Ev  Txncx.  Ramah  was  a  city  on  the  confines  of 
Benjamin,  not  far  from  Bethlehem  in  Judah.  As  Rachel  was 
the  mother  of  Benjamin,  she  is  here,  by  the  Prophet  Jeremiah, 
from  whom  the  words  are  quoted,  introduced  as  most  nearly  con- 
cerned. It  is  true,  however,  that  in  the  Heb.  the  term  rendered 
in  Ramah,  may  be  translated  on  high.  And  both  Origen  and 
Jerom  were  of  opinion  that  it  ought  to  be  so  translated.  But  the 
authors  of  the  Sep.  have  thought  otherwise;  and  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  the  Evangelist,  or  his  translator,  have  judged  it 
best  to  follow  that  version.  The  mention  of  Rachel  as  lamenting 
on  this  occasion,  gives  a  probability  to  the  common  version  of 
the  Prophet's  expression.  Otherwise  it  would  have  been  more 
natural  to  exhibit  Leah  the  mother  of  Judah,  than  Rachel  the  mo- 


20  NOTES  ON  ch.  n. 

ther  of  Benjamin,  as  inconsolable  on  account  of  a  massacre  per- 
petrated in  a  city  of  Judah,  and  aimed  against  one  of  that  tribe. 
^  Lamentation  and  zceeping,  and  bitter  complaint^  3-pnt<^  xxt 
y,XcivB-f^(^  x-cti  oivp/JL®-  TToXvi.  Vul.  Ploratiis  et  ululatus  multus. 
In  three  Gr.  copies  S-^»v(^  x.xi  are  wanting.  All  the  three  words 
are  in  the  Sep.  in  the  passage  referred  to,  though  there  are  but 
two  corresponding  words  in  the  Heb.  In  most  of  the  ancient 
versions  there  is  the  same  omission  as  in  the  Vul. 

22.  Hearing  that  Archelaus  had  succeeded  his  farther  Herod 
in  the  throne  of  Judca,  he  teas  afraid  to  return  thither.  Arch- 
elaus was  constituted  by  Augustus  ethnarch  (that  is,  ruler  of  the 
nation,  but  in  title  inferior  to  king)  over  Judea,  Samaria,  and 
Idumea.  The  Orientals,  however,  commonly  gave  to  such,  and 
indeed  to  all  sovereigns,  the  appellation  of  kings.  The  emperor 
is  repeatedly  so  named  in  Scripture.  And  here  the  word  i€a.Ft- 
^£vs-£v  is  applied  to  Archelaus,  who  succeded  his  father,  not  in 
title,  but  in  authority,  over  the  principal  part,  not  the  whole,  of 
his  dominions.  But  though  Joseph  was  afraid  to  go  into  Judea, 
strictly  so  called,  he  still  continued  in  the  land  of  Israel ;  for  un- 
der that  name,  Galilee  and  a  considerable  extent  of  country  lying 
east  of  the  Jordan,  were  included.     Prel.  Diss.  I.  P.  I.  §  7. 

23.  That  he  should  be  called  a  Nazarene,  in  Kot^upx;®^  kXhiBh- 
c-nat.  E.  T.  He  shall  be  called  a  Nazaretie.  The  words  may 
be  rendered  either  way,  A  direct  quotation  is  often  introduced 
with  the  conjunction  hn.  On  the  other  hand,  that  the  verb  is  in 
the  indicative  is  no  objection,  of  any  weight,  against  translating 
the  passage  obliquely.  The  Heb.  has  no  subjunctive  mood,  and 
therefore  the  indicative  in  the  N.  T,  is  often  used  subjunctively, 
in  conformity  to  the  Oriental  idiom.  And,  as  there  is  no  place, 
in  the  Prophets  still  extant,  where  we  have  this  affirmation  in  so 
many  words,  I  thought  it  better  to  give  an  oblique  turn  to  the 
expression. 

^  Nazarene.  To  mark  a  difference  between  N«i^(V^«/(^,  the 
term  used  here,  and  Nes^a^^jx®^,  the  common  word  for  an  inhabi- 
tant of  Nazareth,  Sc.  and  Dod.  say  Nazarcean,  Wa.  says  Naz~ 
orean.  But  as  the  term  Na^ry^«<®-  is,  by  this  evangelist,  (xxvi, 
71)  used  manifestly  in  the  same  sense,  and  also  by  both  Mr.  and 
J.  I  can  see  no  reason  for  this  small  variation.  Some  find  a  Goin- 
cidence  in  the  name  with  a  Heb,  word  for  a  Nazarite  ;  others  for 


CH.  II.  S.  MATTHEW.  21 

a  word  signifying  brunch,  a  term  by  which  the  Messiah,  in  the 
judgment  of  Jews,  as  well  as  of  Christians,  is  denominated,  Isaiah 
xi.  1. 

It  is  proper  to  observe  that,  in  the  Ileb.  exemplar  of  this  Gos- 
pel which  was  used  by  the  Ebionites,  and  called  The  Gospel  ac^ 
cording  to  the  Hebrezcs,  the  two  first  chapters  were  wanting  :•— 
the  book  began  in  this  manner,  //  happened,  in  the  days  of  Herod 
king  of  J iidea,  that  John  came  baptizing,  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
formation, in  the  river  Jordan.  He  was  said  to  be  of  the  race  of 
Aaron  the  priest,  and  son  of  Zacbarias  and  Elizabeth.  But  for 
this  reading,  and  the  rejection  of  the  two  chapters,  there  is  not 
one  concurrent  testimony  from  MSS.  versions,  or  ancient  authors. 
It  is  true  the  Al.  has  not  the  two  chapters;  but  this  is  no  autho- 
rity for  rejecting  them,  as  that  copy  is  mutilated,  and  contains 
but  a  very  small  fragment  of  Mt.'s  Gospel.  No  fewer  than  the 
twenty-four  first  chapters  are  wanting,  and  the  copy  begins  with 
the  verb  ep^erxt,  Cometh,  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence,  ch.  xxv.  6. 
By  a  like  mutilation,  though  much  less  considerable,  the  first 
nineteen  verses  of  the  first  chapter  are  wanting  in  the  Cam.  which 
also  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence  with  the  verb  TrxpxXxQeiVf 
to  take  home.  And  in  the  Go.  version  all  is  wanting  before  the 
middle  of  the  fifteenth  verse  of  ch.  v.  It  begins  likewise  in  the 
middle  of  a  sentence  with  the  words  answering  to  £w<  t)}v  Av;(iv<«£v. 
Now  if  we  abstract  from  these,  which  prove  nothing,  but  that 
the  Avords  they  begin  with  w^ire  preceded  I)y  something  now  lost; 
there  is  a  perfect  harmony  in  the  testimonies,  both  of  MSS.  and 
of  versions,  in  favour  of  the  two  chapters.  The  old  Itc.  transla- 
tion and  the  Syr.  were  probably  made  before  the  name  Ebionite 
was  known  in  the  church.  Even  so  early  a  writer  as  IrenjeuSy 
in  the  fragment  formerly  quoted  (Pref.  §  7.),  takes  notice  that 
Mt.  began  his  history  with  the  genealogy  of  Jesus.  That  the 
Nazarenes,  (or  Jewish  christians,  on  whom,  though  disciples, 
the  Mosaic  ceremonies  were,  by  themselves,  thought  binding) 
who  also  used  a  Heb.  exemplar  of  {his  Gospel,  had  the  two  chap- 
ters, is  probable,  as  Epiphanius  calls  their  copy  very  full,  ^tAj}-, 
p£?-xToy,  though,  it  must  be  owned,  he  immediately  after  expresses 
Some  doubt  of  their  retaining  their  pedigree.  Si.  thinks  it  pro. 
bable  that  they  did  retain  it,  as  he  learns  from  Epiphanius  that 
Carpocras  and  Cerinthus,  whose  notions  pretty  much  coincided 
with  theirs,  retained  it,  and  even  used  it  in  arguing  against  their 

VOL.    IV.  3 


22  NOTES  ON  ch.  hi 

adversaries.  I  might  add  to  the  testimony  of  Tersions,  MSS.  and 
ancient  authors,  the  internal  evidence  we  have  of  the  vitiation  of 
the  Ebionite  exemplar,  the  only  copy  that  is  charged  with  this 
defect,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  additions  and  alterations  it 
contains. 

CHAPTER  III. 

1.  In  those  days.  As  the  thing  last  mentioned  was  the  resi- 
dence of  Jesus  with  his  parents  at  Nazareth,  the  words  those  dai/s 
may  be  used  with  strict  propriety  of  any  time  before  he  left  that 
city.  Now  John  was  about  six  montlis  older  than  Jesus  ;  it  may 
therefore  be  thought  not  improbable  that  he  began  his  public 
ministry  so  much  earlier,  each  in  the  30th  year  of  his  age,  agree- 
ably to  the  practice  of  the  Levites,  Num.  iv.  3.  But  it  must  be 
owned  that  this  is  no  more  than  conjecture:  for  as  to  the  age  of 
the  Baptist,  when  he  commenced  preacher,  scripture  has  been  si- 
lent. 

^  The  Baptist,  o  Bxttti?-^!;.  A  title  from  his  office,  not  a  pro- 
per name.  It  is  equivalent  to  the  title  given  him,  Mr.  vi.  14.  o 
Bx-s!m^av,  the  Baptizcr.  It  is  therefore  improperly  rendered  in- 
to modern  languages  without  the  article,  as  Dio,  has  done  in  Itn. 
calling  him  Giovanni  Battista,  and  all  the  Fr.  translators  Iknow 
(except  L.  CI.),  who  call  him  Jean  Baptisie. 

3    Cried,  Ktspva-a-m.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V. 

"*    Wilderness.)  epufiM.     Mr.  i.  3.  N. 

2.  Reform,  itterxvoetre.      Diss.  VI.  P.  III. 
^   Reign^  fiue-aeix.     Diss.  V.  P.  I. 

4.  Of  camePs  hair,  not  of  the  fine  hair  of  that  animal,  where- 
of an  elegant  kind  of  cloth  is  made,  which  is  thence  called  cam- 
let (in  imitation  of  which,  though  made  of  wool,  is  the  English 
camlet^,  but  of  the  long  and  shaggy  hair  of  camels,  which  is  iu 
the  East  manufactured  into  a  coarse  stuff,  anciently  worn  by 
monks  and  anchorets.  It  is  only  when  understood  in  this  way 
that  the  words  suit  the  description  here  given  of  John's  mannei::. 
of  life. 

^  Locusts,  ay-pthq,  I  see  no  ground  to  doubt  that  it  was  the 
animal  so  named  that  is  meant  here,  hocur.ts  and  grasshoppers 
are  among  the  things  allowed  by  the  law  to  be  eaten,  Lev.  xi.  22. 
and  are,  at  this  day,  eaten  in  Asia,  by  the  poorer  sort ;  I  have 
never  had  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  word  is  susceptible  of 
any  other  interpretation. 


til.  HI.  S.  MATTHEW.  23 

5.  The  counlrij  along  the  Jordan.,  v  ve^tx^ofoz  ^a  iop^oua.  Mr. 
i.  28.  xV. 

7.  From  the  impefiding  vengeance^  a-no  rta  jit£My<rjj5  a/)yjj?.  E. 
T.  From  the  v:rafh  to  come.  MeXXav  often  means  not  o\\\y  fu. 
ture.^  but  near.  There  is  just  such  a  ditference  between  s-txi  and 
ju,£AAe<  £ri(rB-cct.,  in  Gr.  as  thereis  between  it  will  be  and  it  is  about 
to  be,  in  Eng.  This  holds  particularly  in  threats  and  warnings. 
Er^t  A;/n«5  is  eril  fames  ;  (Ji.sXXti  eTeS-ai  XtfMi  is  imminet  fames.  In 
Job  iii.  8.  a  Heb.  word  signifying  ready,  prepared,  is  rendered 
by  the  Seventy  y^t^Xav.  Besides,  its  connection  with  the  verb  <pv. 
yiiv  in  this  verse  ascertains  the  import  of  the  word.  We  think 
of  fleeing  only  when  pursued.  The  flight  itself  naturally  sug- 
gests to  spectators  that  the  enemy  is  at  hand.  In  cases  however 
wherein  no  more  appears  to  be  intended  than  the  bare  prediction 
of  an  event,  or  declaration  of  some  purpose,  we  are  to  consider  it 
as  equivalent  to  an  ordinary  future,  ch.  xvii.  22.  N.  The  words, 
the  icrath  to  come,  appear  to  limit  the  sense  to  what  is  strictly 
called  the  future  judgment. 

8.  The  proper  fruit  of  reformation,  y-xpTrni  a,'^ni<i  rr^c,  (K,£T«yo<*5. 
E.  'T.  fruits  meet  for  repentance.  Y\x\.  fructum  dignum  pceni- 
tentice.  A  very  great  number  of  MSS.  read  x-upTrov  x^iov,  amongst 
which  are  some  of  the  oldest  and  most  valued;  likewise  several 
ancient  versions,  as  the  Ara.  the  second  Sy.  Cop.  Eth.  and  Sax. 
It  appears  too,  that  some  of  the  earliest  fathers  read  in  the  same 
manner.  Of  the  moderns,  IjU.  Gro.  Si.  Den.  Mill,  and  Wet. 
have  approved  it.  It  is  so  read  in  the  Com.  and  some  other  old 
editions.  KxpTrag  et^tug  is  universally  allowed  to  be  the  genuine 
reading  in  L.  Some  ignorant  transcriber  has  probably  thought 
proper  to  correct  one  Gospel  by  the  other.  Such  freedoms  have 
been  too  often  used. 

10.  Turned  into  fuel.     Ch.  vi.  30.     ^ 'S. 

11.  In  zcaier — in  the  Holy  Spirit,  £v  u^cK,ri — ev  uytu  Trvevf^^xn. 
E.  T.  zcith  xoater — zaith  the  Holy  Ghost.  Vul.  in  aqua — in  Spi- 
ritu  Sancto.  Thus  also,,  the  Sy.  and  other  ancient  versions.  All 
the  modern  translations  from  the  Gr.  which  I  have  seen,  render 
the  words  as  our  common  version  does,  except  L.  CI.  who  says, 
dans  Veau — dans  le  Saint  Esprit.  I  am  sorry  to  observe  that 
the  Popish  translators  from  the  Vul.  have  shown  greater  vene- 
ration for  the  style  of  that  version  than  the  geaeralitv  of  Protes- 


24  NOTES  ON  en.  in. 

tant  translators  have  shown  for  that  of  the  original.  For  in  this 
the  La.  is  not  more  explicit  than  the  Gr.  Yet  so  inconsistent 
are  the  interpreters  last  mentioned,  that  none  of  them  have  scru- 
pled to  render  sv  ru  lop^xvii,  in  the  sixth  verse,  in  Jordan^  though 
nothinfj  can  be  plainer,  than  that  if  there  be  any  incongruity  in 
the  expression  in  water^  this  in  Jordan  must  be  equally  incon- 
gruous. But  they  have  seen  that  the  preposition  in  could  not  be 
avoided  there,  without  adopting  a  circumlocution,  and  saying, 
■zcith  the  water  of  Jordan,  which  would  have  made  their  devia- 
tion from  the  text  too  glaring.  The  word  ^aTcrt^uv,  both  in  sa- 
cred authors,  and  in  classical,  signifies,  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  irri' 
merse,  and  was  rendered  by  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of  the  La. 
fathers,  tingere,  the  term  used  for  dying  cloth,  which  was  by 
immersion.  It  is  always  construed  suitably  to  this  meaning. 
Thus  it  is,  £V  v^xrt,  ev  ro>  lop^cuvti.  But  I  should  not  lay  much 
stress  on  the  preposition  ev,  which,  answering  to  the  Heb.  a,  may 
denote  zinfh  as  well  as  in,  did  not  the  whole  phraseology,  in  re- 
gard to  this  ceremony,  concur  in  evincing  the  same  thing.  Ac- 
cordingly the  baptised  are  said  avx^aiveiv,  to  arise,  emerge,  or  as- 
cend, V.  16.  U7re  Tn  i/(J«ra?,  and  Acts  viii.  39.  ex.  m  v^xroi;,from  or 
out  of  the  water.  Let  it  be  observed  further,  that  the  verbs  pxiva 
and  pxvri^a,  used  in  scripture  for  sprinklitig,  are  never  construed 
in  this  manner,  /  zc ill  sprinkle  you  with  clean  water,  says  God, 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.  or  as  it  runs  in  the  E.  T.  literally  fii-om  the 
Heb.  /  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  is  in  the  Sept.  Vaivu 
ttp'  vf^ot/i  x-xS-ccpov  'u^t»p,  and  not  as  ^xTrrt^u  is  always  construed. 
Txvu  vy.ui  ev  KctB-xpu  u^xri.  See  also  Exod.  xxix.  21.  Lev.  vi.  27. 
xvi.  14.  ll&d  £x':T7t<^M  been  here  employed  in  the  sense  of  ^«;<i/iw 
I  sprinkle  (which  as  far  as  I  know,  it  never  is,  in  any  use,  sa- 
cred or  classical)  the  expression  would  doubtless  have  been  Ey« 
iK,fv  QctTTTi^ii)  lip'  ifAMc,  l§Mp,  or  etTTo  TH  v^xTeq,  agreeably  to  the  exam- 
ples referred  to.  When  therefore  the  Gr.  word  ^xvTi^a  is  adopt- 
ed, I  may  say,  rather  than  translated  into  modern  languages,  the 
mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  preserved  so  far  as  may  con- 
duce to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we 
have  so  much  evidence  that  even  good  and  learned  men  allow 
their  judgments  to  be  warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of 
the  sect  which  they  prefer.  The  true  partizan,  of  whatever  de- 
nomination, always  inclines  to  correct  the  diction  of  the  spirit. 
by  that  of  the  party. 


CH.  in.  S.  MATTHEW.  23 

^  In  the  Holy  Spirit  andfire^  a  -Trnvf^an  kyia  y.cti  ttv^i.  Hey. 
zcith  holy  zcind  and  fire.  This  most  uncommon,  though  not  en- 
tirely new,  version  of  that  learned  and  ingenious,  but  sometimes 
fanciful,  interpreter,  is  supported  by  the  following  arguments  : 
1st,  The  word  xvfv^se,  which  signifies  both  spirit  and  xcind^  has 
not  here  the  article  by  which  the  Holij  Spirit  is  commonly  dis- 
tinguished. 2dly,  The  following  verse,  v\  hich  should  be  regard- 
ed as  an  illustration  of  this,  mentions  the  cleansing  of  the  wheat, 
which  is  by  the  zcind  separating  the  chaff,  and  the  consuming  of 
the  chaff  by  the  fire,  3dly,  The  three  elements,  water,  air,  and 
fire,  were  all  considered  by  the  Jews  as  purifiers,  and,  in  respect 
of  their  purifying  quality,  were  ranked  in  the  order  now  named, 
water  the  lowest,  and  fire  the  highest.  The  mention  of  the  other 
two  gives  a  presumption  that  the  third  was  not  omitted.  The 
following  answers  are  submitted  to  the  reader  :  1st.  The  article, 
though  often,  for  distinction's  sake,  prefixed  to  kyiav  ■zs-vr^vf/^,  is, 
when  either  the  scope  of  the  place,  or  the  other  terms  employed, 
serve  the  purpose  of  distinguishing,  frequently  omitted.  Now 
this  purpose  is  more  effectually  served  by  the  epithet  oiyiov,  holy^ 
than  it  could  have  been  by  the  article.  In  ch.  i.  18.  and  20.  the 
miraculous  conception  is  twice  said  to  be  «  TzuviJLa.Ta^  <iy/y,  with- 
out the  article.  Yet  Hey.  himself  has  rendered  it,  in  both  places, 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Further,  I  suspect  that  no  clear  example  can 
be  produced  of  this  adjective  joined  to  tthviam,^  where  the  meaning 
of  TTViVfA-cc  is  wind.  At  least  I  have  never  heard  of  any  such. 
2dly,  The  subsequent  verse  is  certainly  not  to  be  understood  as 
an  illustration  of  this,  but  as  farther  information  concerning  Je- 
sus. This  verse  represents  the  manner  in  which  he  will  admit 
his  disciples  ;  the  next,  that  in  which  he  will  judge  them  at  the 
end  of  the  world.  3dly,  I  can  see  no  reason,  on  the  Dr.'s  hy- 
pothesis, why  air  or  wind  should  alone  of  all  the  elements  be 
dignified  with  the  epithet  holy.  Fire^  in  that  view,  would  have 
a  preferable  title,  being  considered  as  the  most  perfect  refiner  of 
them  all.  Yet  in  no  part  of  the  N.  T.  is  mention  made  of  either 
hohj  water  or  holy  fre.  Now  as  it  is  acknowledged  that  TrvzvfJLei, 
commonly  signifies  spirit.,  and  when  joined  with  a-ym  the  Divine 
Spirit,  the  word,  by  all  the  laws  of  interpretation,  considering 
the  peculiarity  of  the  attribute  with  which  it  is  accompanied, 
must  be  so  understood  here.     It  is  however  but  doing  justice  to 


26  NOTES  ON  cH.  in. 

that  respectable  author  to  observe  that  he  does  not  differ  from 
others,  in  regard  to  the  principal  view  of  the  passage,  the  effu- 
sion of  the  Holy  Spirit;  only  he  thinks  that  the  literal  import  of 
the  word  7rvcv/icx  in  this  plactf  is  zoind,  and  that  the  sjnrit  is  but 
suggested  to  us,  by  a  figure, 

3  Andfire^  tcm  Trvpi.  These  words  are  wanting  in  several  MSS. 
but  they  are  found  in  a  greater  number,  as  well  as  in  the  Sy.  the 
Vul.  and  all  the  ancient  versions. 

12.  His  xcinnowing  shovel  is  in  his  hand,  ov  to  tttvov  ev  r-^  ^eipi 
etvTH.  E.  T.  Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand.  Vul.  Cnjus  venlila-. 
brum  in  manu  sua.  In  the  old  Vul.  or  Itc.  the  word  appears  to 
have  been  pala,  properly  a  zmnnowing  shovel,  of  w  hich  mention 
is  made  Isa.  xxx.  24.  This  implement  of  husbandry  is  very  an- 
cient, simple,  and  properly  manual.  The  fan  (or  van,  as  it  is 
sometimes  called,)  is  more  complex,  and  being  contrived  for 
raising  an  artificial  wind,  by  the  help  of  sails,  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered as  proper  for  being  carried  about  in  the  hand. 

15.  Thus  ought  we  to  ratify  every  institution^  a'ra  TrpeTrov  is-iv 
rf^iv  •xXtsptaa-ou  7rx<ra,i  ^Mxioa-vtvjv.  E.  T.  Thus  ithecovieth  us  to  ful- 
fil all  righteousness.  In  the  opinion  of  Chrysostom,  and  other 
expositors,  hKMoa-w^  signifies  in  this  place  divine  precejjt.  It  is 
the  word  by  which  B^ffD  mishpat,  in  Heb,  often  denoting  an  instil 
tution  or  ordinance  of  religion,  is  sometimes  rendered  by  the 
Seventy.  I  have  chosen  here  to  translate  the  verb  TtrXyipMcroti  ra- 
ther ratify  than  fulfil,  because  the  conformity  of  Jesus,  in  this 
instance,  was  not  the  personal  obedience  of  one  who  was  compre- 
hended in  the  precept,  and  needed  with  others  the  benefit  of  pu- 
rification, but  it  was  the  sanction  of  his  example  given  to  John's 
baptism,  as  a  divine  ordinance. 

16.  No  sooner   arose  out  of  the  water  than  heaven  was  open. 

ed  to  him,  aveQuj  cvS-v^  Wyro  rov  u^cctoi;,  km  iShv  ccveM^^^s-xv  avra  ot 
ovpeevoi.  E.  T.  Went  up  straighfzcay  out  of  the  water,  audio  the 
heavens  were  opened  unto  him.  That  the  adverb  ivS-vi,  though 
joined  with  the  first  verb,  does  properly  belong  to  the  second, 
was  justly  remarked  by  Grotius.  Of  this  idiom,  Mr.  i.  29.  and 
xi.  2.  are  also  examples. 


cH.  IV.  S.  MATTHEW.  i7 

CHAPTER  IV. 

I.  Bi/  the  devil,  Cm  ra  ha^oXa.     Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  ^  1 — 6. 

3.  A  son  of  God,  ii(^  m  0£«.  E.  T,  The  son  of  God.  It 
does  not  appear  to  be  without  design  that  the  article  is  omitted 
both  in  this  verse  and  in  the  sixth.  The  words  ought  therefore 
to  be  rendered  indefinitely  a  son,  not  emphatically  the  son.  In  the 
parallel  passage  in  L.  iv.  3.  there  is  the  same  omission.  And 
though  in  the  9th  verse  of  that  chapter  we  find  the  article  in  the 
present  common  Gr.  it  is  v/anting  in  so  many  ancient  MSS.  and 
approved  editions,  that  it  is  justly  rejected  by  critics.  Whether 
we  are  to  impute  Satan's  expressing  himself  thus  to  his  ignorance, 
as  not  knowing  the  dignity  of  the  personage  whom  he  accosted, 
or  to  his  malignity,  as  being  averse  to  suppose  more  than  an 
equality  with  other  good  men  (for  he  does  not  acknowledge  even 
so  much) ;  certain  it  is,  that  the  passage  he  quotes  from  the 
Psalms,  admits  a  general  application  to  all  pious  persons.  The 
omission  of  the  definite  article  in  this  place  is  the  more  reniarka. 
ble,  as  in  the  preceding  chapter  in  both  Gospels,  the  appropria. 
tion  of  the  term  6m?  by  means  of  the  article,  in  the  voice  from 
heaven,  is  very  strongly  marked,  o  wo?  f^Lov  o  oyas^rjjTa?.  See  N.  on 
ch.  xiv.  33.  xxvii.  54. 

^  Loaves,  octroi.  E.  T.  Bread,  Apre?,  used  indefinitely,  is 
rightly  translated  bread ;  but  when  joined  with  hi,  or  any  other 
word  limiting  the  signification  in  the  singular  number,  ought  to 
be  rendered  loaf ;  in  the  plural  it  ought  almost  always  to  be  ren- 
dered loaves.  Even  if  either  were  proper,  loaves  would  be  pre- 
ferable in  this  place,  as  being  more  picturesque.  Our  transla- 
tors have  here  followed  the  Sy.  interpreter,  who  seems  to  have 
read  ecproi. 

4.  Bj/  cVcry  thing  zchich  God  is  pleased  to  appoint^  itti  ttxvti 

pyifjLxri  e>c?ro^evoft.;vM  ^ix  e-rofAxroi  Qeov.  E.  T.  jBj/  evertj  word  that 
proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  The  whole  sentence  is 
given  as  a  quotation.  It  is  written.  The  place  quoted  is  Deut. 
viii.  3.  where  Moses,  speaking  to  the  Israelites,  says.  He  humbled 
thee,  and  suffered  thee  to  hunger,  and  fed  thee  with  manna, 
ivhich  thou  knezoest  7iot,  neither  did  thj/ fathers  know;  that  he 
might  make  thee  know  that  man  doth  not  live  by  bread  only,  but 
hy  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  month  of  the  Lord,  doth 


28  NOTES  ON  cH.  iv. 

man  live.  It  is  evident  that  the  Jewish  lawgiver  is  speaking  here 
of  the  food  of  the  body,  or  sustenance  of  the  animal  life ;  as  it  was 
this  purpose  solely  which  the  manna  served,  and  which  could 
not,  in  our  idiom,  be  denominated  a  word.  The  reader  may  ob- 
serve that  the  term  word  in  the  passage  of  the  O.  T.  quoted  is,  in 
our  Bible,  printed  in  Italics,  to  denote  that  there  is  no  corres- 
ponding term  in  the  original.  It  might  therefore  have  been  lite- 
rally rendered  from  the  Heb.  every  thing.  In  the  Sep.  from 
■which  the  quotation  in  the  Gospel  is  copied,  the  ellipsis  is  sup- 
plied by  p7i)JLci.  But  let  it  be  observed,  that  in  scripture  both  the 
Hob.  "13T  dabar,  and  the  Gr.  pi^f^x,  and  sometimes  A«y«5,  mean  in- 
ditferently  word  or  thing.  Take  the  following  examples  out  of 
a  much  greater  number.  L.  i.  37.  Ovx,  cc^vvunia-ei  Trxpx  ru  Qea 
Trot')  pyjf^x.  Nothing  is  impossible  with  God. — ii.  1 5.  Let  us  now 
go  to  Bethlehem,  and  see  this  thing,  to  prjf*.cK,  rovro,  which  is  come 
to  pass.  The  phrase  to  £K7ropevou.i\ov  (or  £|4A.9-av)  tx.  rov  s-ajitstra?,  is 
oftener  than  once  to  be  met  with,  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy, 
for  a  declared  jmrpose,  resolution,  or  appointment.  See  Num. 
xxxii.  24.  1  Sam.  i.  23.  But  nothing  can  be  more  express  io 
our  purpose  than  Jer.  xliv.  17.  UoaiToy.,tv  ttxvtx  A«ya»  o;  t^eXivo-t^ 
rxi  ey.  rov  rof^xroi  tificov.  E.  T.  IVe  will  do  zchatsoever  thing  go- 
eth  foi'th  out  of  our  own  mouth,  -ttx^tos,  Myov,  in  Heb.  lann  Va,  col 
hadabar,  every  xoord,  that  is,  we  zcill  do  whatsoever  we  have 
purposed.  The  version  I  have  given  is,  therefore,  entirely  agree- 
able both  to  the  sense  of  the  passage  quoted,  and  to  the  idiom  of 
holy  writ.  I  may  add,  that  it  is  much  better  adapted  to  the  con- 
text than  the  allegorical  explanation  which  some  give  of  the 
words,  as  relating  purely  to  the  spiritual  life.  The  historian 
tells  us  that  Jesus  had  fasted  forty  days,  that  he  was  hungry,  and 
in  a  desert,  where  food  was  not  to  be  had.  The  tempter,  taking 
his  opportunity,  interposes,  "  If  thou  be  the  Messiah,  convert 
"  these  stones  into  loaves."  The  question  was  simply.  What, 
in  this  exigence,  was  to  be  done  for  sustaining  life  ?  Our  Saviour 
answers  very  pertinently,  by  a  quotation  from  the  O.  T.  pur. 
porting,  that  when  the  sons  of  Israel  were  in  the  like  perilous 
situation  in  a  desert,  without  the  ordinary  means  of  subsistence, 
God  supplied  them  with  food,  by  which  their  lives  were  preserv- 
ed, (for  it  is  not  pretended  that  the  manna  served  as  spiritual 
nourishment),  to  teach  us  that  no  strait,  however  pressing,  ought 
io  shake  our  confidence  in  him.  Beau,  and  the  anonymous  Eng, 
translator  in  1729,  exhibit  the  same  sense  in  their  versions. 


CH.  IV.  S.  MATTHEW.  29 

6.  Lcst^  f/.ytvore.  E.  T.  Lest  at  any  time.  From  aa  exces. 
sive  solicitude,  not  io  say  less  than  the  original,  words  have  been 
explained  from  etymology,  rather  than  from  use  ;  in  consequence 
of  which  practice,  some  versions  are  encumbered  with  exple- 
tives, which  enfeeble,  instead  of  strengthening,  the  expression. 
Of  this  kind  is  the  phrase  at  any  time,  which,  in  this  passage, 
adds  nothing  to  the  sense.  The  compound  itt^j^reTg,  in  the  use  of 
the  sacred  penmen,  rarely  signifies  more  than  the  simple  ^;},  lest. 
It  is  used  by  the  Seventy  in  translating  a  Heb.  term  that  imports 
no  more.  In  the  Psalm  referred  to,  it  is  rendered  simply  lest. 
And  to  go  no  farther  than  this  Gospel,  our  translators  have  not 
hesitated  to  render  it  so  in  the  following  passages,  vii.  6.  xiii.  29, 
XV.  32.  XXV.  9.  xxvii.  64.  Why  they  have  not  done  so  in  this, 
and  most  other  places,  I  can  discover  no  good  reason. 

7.  Jesus  again  anszoeredy  It  is  written,  sipv  xvra  d  Itis-cvg  tfxXiv 
yeypx'TToci.  E.  T.  Jesus  said  unto  him,  It  is  zoritten  again.  The 
words  in  the  original  are  susceptible  of  either  interpretation,  the 
difference  depending  entirely  on  the  pointing.  I  place  the  com- 
ma after  w«A/v,  they  after  Ir^Tov^.  This  was  the  second  answer 
which  Jesus  made,  on  this  occasion,  to  the  devil.  It  is  not  easy 
to  say  in  what  sense  the  words  quoted  can  be  said  to  have  been 
written  again.  The  punctuation  is  not  of  divine  authority,  any 
more  than  the  division  into  chapters  and  verses. 

^  Thou  shall  not  put  the  Lord  thy  God  to  the  proof,  ev»  ttcTrei- 
pxa-ifi  Kvpiov  rov  ©tav  o-ov.  E.  T.  Thou  shalt  7iot  tempt  the  Lord 
thy  God.  What  we  commonly  mean  by  the  word  tempting,  does 
not  suit  the  sense  of  the  Gr.  word  iKTreipx^u  in  this  passage.  The 
Eng.  word  means  properly  either  to  solicit  to  evil,  or  to  provoke  / 
whereas  the  import  of  the  Gr.  verb  in  this  and  several  other  pla- 
ces is  to  assay,  to  try,  to  put  to  the  proof.  It  is  thus  the  word 
is  used.  Gen.  xxii.  1.  where  God  is  said  to  have  tempted  Abra. 
ham,  commanding  him  to  offer  up  his  son  Isaac  for  a  burnt  offer^ 
ing.  God  did  not  solicit  the  patriarch  to  evil,  for,  in  this  sense, 
as  the  Apostle  James  tells  us,  i,  13,  he  neither  can  be  tempted, 
nor  tempteth  any  man.  But  God  tried  Abraham,  as  the  word 
pught  manifestly  to  have  been  rendered,  putting  his  faith  and 
obedience  to  the  proof.  His  ready  compliance,  so  far  from  being 
evil,  was  an  evidence  of  the  sublimest  virtue.  It  was  in  desiring 
to  have  a  proof  of  God's  care  of  them,  and  presence  with  them, 

VOL.   IV.  4 


30  NOTES  ON  CH.  IV. 

that  the  children  of  Israel  are  said  to  have  tempted  the  Lord  af 
Massa,  saying,  Is  the  Lord  among  us  or  not?  Ex.  xvii.  7. 
And  on  the  present  occasion,  it  was  God's  love  to  him,  and  faith- 
fulness in  the  performance  of  his  promise,  that  the  devil  desired 
our  Lord,  by  throwing  himself  headlong  from  a  precipice,  to 
make  trial  of.  As,  however,  it  has  been  objected  that  this  last 
phrase,  which  I  at  first  adopted,  is  somewhat  ambiguous,  I  have 
changed  it  for  one  which  cannot  be  mistaken. 

15.  On  the  Jordan,  Tre^xv  rn  U^^xvs.  E.  T.  Beyond  Jordan. 
The  Heb.  word  "i^jjd  megheber,  rendered  by  the  Seventy  ^rsfctv, 
signifies  indifferently  on  this  side,  or  on  the  other  side.  In  Num. 
xxxii.  19.  the  word  is  used  in  both  meanings  in  the  same  sen- 
tence. Unless  therefore  some  other  word  or  phrase  is  added,  as 
TcxT  xvuTiXxi,  or  Kctrx  iocXoio-a-coi,  to  ascertain  the  sense,  it  ought  to 
be  rendered  as  in  the  text,  or  as  in  verse  25th.  Zebulon  and  Naph- 
tali  were  on  the  same  side  of  the  Jordan  with  Jerusalem  and  Ju- 
dea,  where  Isaiah  exercised  his  prophetical  office. 

^  Near  the  sea,  o^ov  ^aAcec-c-jj?.  E.  T.  By  the  way  of  the  sea- 
This  expression  is  rather  indefinite  and  obscure.  There  is  an 
ellipsis  in  the  original,  but  I  have  given  the  sense.  What  is  here 
called  sea  is,  properly,  not  a  sea,  but  a  lake.  It  was  customary 
with  the  Hebrews  to  denominate  a  large  extent  of  water,  though 
fresh  water,  and  encompassed  with  land,  by  the  name  sea.  Both 
Mt.  and  Mr.  denominate  this  the  sea  oj  Galilee  ;  J.  calls  it  the 
sea  of  Tiberias  ;  L.  more  properly,  the  lake  of  Gennesareth. 
It  was  on  this  lake  that  Capernaum,  and  some  other  towns  of 
note,  were  situated.  Here  also  Peter  and  Andrew,  James  and 
John,  before  they  were  called  to  the  apostleship,  exercised  the 
occupation  of  fishers.  The  sea  of  Galilee.,  and  the  sea  of  Tibe- 
rias, are  become,  in  scripture-style,  so  much  like  proper  names, 
that  it  might  look  affected  to  change  them,  for  the  lake  of  Gali.. 
lee,  and  the  lake  of  Tiberias.  Besides,  where  it  can  convenient. 
ly  be  done,  these  small  differences  in  phraseology,  which  diversi- 
fy the  styles  of  the  Evangelists,  in  the  original,  ought  to  be  pre- 
served in  the  translation. 

16.  A  region  of  the  shades  of  death,  %«f«  ««<  c-j^'et  iotvotra.  In 
the  Sep.  in  the  passage  referred  to,  the  words  are  x'^'f"''  "'"■"^'^  Savx.. 
Tn,  literally  from  the  Heb.  of  the  prophet,  rm  h-i  n«  arets  tsal. 
moth.     Tsal.mothf  it  was  observed,  Diss.  VI.  P-  H-  §  2-  a»id 


CH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  31 

sheol,  are  nearly  synonymous,  and  answer  to  «<?«;  in  the  N.  T. 
which  signifies  the  invisible  world,  or  the  state  of  the  dead.  The 
expression  is  here  evidently  metaphorical,  and  represents  the  ig- 
nocance  or  spiritual  darkness  in  which  the  people  of  that  region, 
who  were  intermixed  with  the  heathen,  lived,  before  they  re- 
ceived the  light  of  the  Gospel. 

17.  Began  to  proclaim,  iip^xro  xfipva-a-em,  Mr.  v.  17.  N. 

18.  ^  drag,  ai^iQxnTpav.  E.  T.  A  net.  The  word  is  not  the 
same  here  that  is  in  verse  20th ;  there  it  is  J'octmv,  which  I  take 
to  be  the  name  of  the  genus,  and  properly  rendered  net.  The 
name  here  is  that  of  a  species  answering  to  what  we  call  a  drag. 
The  same  historian,  xiii.  47.  uses  the  word  o-cey^jvij,  which  in  the 
common  translation  is  also  rendered  net.  It  is  not  very  mate- 
rial, but  neither  ought  it  to  be  altogether  overlooked,  to  make, 
when  possible  in  a  consistency  with  propriety,  the  phraseology  of 
the  version  both  as  various,  and  as  special,  as  that  of  the  origi- 
nal.    Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  9—13. 

21.  In  the  bark,  a  ru  -xXoiu.     E.  T.  In  a  ship.     L.  v.  2.  N. 
"  Mending,  KXTxpri^ovTca.     Mr.  i.  19.  N. 

CHAPTER  V. 

3.  Happy,  /jixxxpioi.  E.  T.  Blessed.  I  agree  with  those  trans- 
lators who  choose  generally  to  render  f^Kxpi(^  happy,  swAayajre? 
and  evXoyyifA.svo<i  blessed.  The  common  version  rarely  makes  a 
distiuction. 

^  Happy  the  poor,  lAaaotpioi  hi  Trra^oi.  E.  T.  Blessed  are  the 
poor.  Is  has  more  energy  in  these  aphoristical  sentences,  after 
the  example  of  the  original,  and  all  the  ancient  versions,  to  omit 
«tie  substantive  verb.  The  idiom  of  our  language  admits  this 
freedom  as  easily  as  the  Itn.  and  more  so  than  the  Fr.  None  of 
the  La.  versions  express  the  verb.  Dio.'s  Itn,  does  not ;  nor  do 
the  Fr.  versions  of  P.  R.  L.  Cl.  and  Sa. — Si.  expresses  it  in  the 
first  beatitude,  but  not  in  the  following  ones.  Another  reason 
which  induced  me  to  adopt  this  manner  is  to  render  these  apho- 
risms,  in  regard  to  happiness,  as  similar  in  form  as  they  are  in 
the  original,  to  the  aphorisms  in  regard  to  wretchedness,  M'hich 
ar^,  L.  vi.  contrasted  with  them,  zco  to  you  that  are  rich — for  I 


^2  NOTES  ON  tH.  V, 

shall  show,  in  the  note  on  that  passage,  that  the  verb  to  be  sup- 
plied is  in  the  indicative  mood  equally  in  both. 

^  Happy  the  poor  who  repine  not^  f^cmxpioi  it  Trru^oi  ra  tfuv- 
fcxTh     E.  T.  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit.     I  have  assigned 
my  reason,  Diss.  XI.  P.  I,  §  18.  for  thinking  that  it  is  as  much 
the  business  of  a  translator  to  translate  phrases  as  to  translate 
words.     An  idiomatic  phrase  stands  precisely  on  the  same  foot- 
ing with  a  compound  word.     The  meaning  is  commonly  learnt 
from  the  usual  application  of  the  whole  word,  or  of  the  whole 
phrase,  and  not  by  the  detached  meanings  of  the  several  parts, 
which,  in  another  language,  conjoined,  in  the  same  manner,  may 
convey  either  no  meaning  at  all,  or  a  meaning  very  different  from 
the  author's;  Such,  in  a  particular  manner,  is  the  meaning  which 
the  phrase  poor  in  spirit  naturally  conveys  to  English  ears. 
Poor.spirited,  which  to  appearance  is  coincident  with  it,  is  al- 
ways employed  in  a  bad  sense,  and  denotes  mean,  dastardly,  ser- 
vile.    Poorness  of  spirit  is  the  same  ill  quality  in  the  abstract. 
The  phrase,  therefore,  in  our  language,  if  it  can  be  said  to  sug- 
gest any  sense,  suggests  one  different  from  the  sense  of  the  text. 
In  support  of  the  interpretation  here  given,  let  the  following 
things  be  attended  to  :     First,  That  it  is  literally  the  poor  that 
is  meant,  may  be  fairly  concluded  from  the  parallel  place,  L.  vi, 
20.  where  the  like  declaration  is  pronounced  of  the  poor  simply, 
without  any  limitation,   as  in  this  passage.     And  this  is  of  con- 
siderable weight,  whether  we  consider  the  discourse  recorded  by 
L.  as  the  same,  or  different,  since  their  coincidence  in  many 
things,  and  similarity  in  others,  are  confessed  on  all  sides.  Now 
what  puts  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  it  is  the  poor  in  the  proper 
sense  that  is  meant  there,  is  the  characters  contrasted  to  those 
pronounced  happih     These  begin  v.  24.    Woe  unto  you  that  are 
rich.     It  is  also  not  without  its  weight,  that  our  Lord  begins 
with  the  poor  on  both  occasions  ;  but  especially  that  the  same 
beatitude  is  ascribed  to  both  :   Theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
I  might  urge  further  that,  if  the  poor  be  not  meant  here,  there  is 
none  of  these  maxims  that  relates  to  them.     Now  this  omission 
is  very  improbable,  in  ushering  in  the  laws  of  a  dispensation 
which  was  entitled,  many  ages  before,  glad  tidings  to  the  poor  ; 
to  announce  which  was  one  great  end  of  the  Messiah's  mission. 
And  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  in  him,  is  what  our  Lord 
fails  Hot  to  observe  on  more  occasions  than  one.    J  cannot  there* 


c  H.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  33 

fore  agree  with  Wh.  and  others,  in  thinking  that  wTiy;^J<J<  ru  -Ttnv- 
f4.»ri  means  humble.     The  quotations  produced  by  that  critic,  in 
support  of  his  opinion,  are  more  foreign  to  his  purpose  than  any 
thing  1  have  yet  discovered  in  his  learned  Commentaries.    "  The 
"  usual  expression,"  says  he,  "  by  which  the  Scriptures  [mean- 
"  ing  tlie  O.  T.]  and  the  Jewish  Avriters  represent  the  humble 
*■'  man  is,  that  he  is  shcphal  ruach,  i.  e.  poor,  low,  or  contrite  in 
''  his  spirit."     And  of  (his  he  brings  some  examples.    It  is  true, 
the  meaning  of  shcphal  is  humble,  and  oi  ruach  is  spirit.     But 
because,  in  Scripture,  men  humble  of  spirit  means  humble  men, 
must  therefore  the  poor  in  spirit  also  mean  humble  men  ?  To 
make  the  inconclusiveness  of  this  reasoning  pass  unobserved,  he 
has  inserted  the  word  poor,  amongst  others,  in  his  explanation  of 
the  word  shcphal.  But  that  it  ever  means  poor,  I  have  not  found 
so  much  as   a  single  example.     It  is  never  translated  by  the 
Seventy  Trrapi^ei  \  but  either  rx7ru<to(i,  or  by  some  word  of  like  im- 
port.    As  to  the  phrase  shcphal  ruach,  it  occurs  but  thrice  in 
Scripture.     In  one  place  it  is  rendered  Trpct'Oivf^oq,  in  anollior  r*- 
'xeiio<ppm,  and  in  the  third  oXiyo-'^vy^o<i.     Should  any  object,  that 
to  exclude  the  humble  from  a  place  here,  will  seem  as  unsuitable 
to  the  temper  of  our  religion,  as  to  exclude  the  poor  ;  I  answer, 
that  I  understand  the  humble  to  be  comprehended  under  the  third 
beatitude :   Happy  the  meek.     Not  that  I   look  upon  the  two 
words  as  strictly  synonymous,  but  as  expressing  the  same  dispo- 
sition under  different  aspects  ;  humilHu,  in  the  contemplation  of 
self  as  in  the  divine  presence;   meekness,  as  regarding  the  con- 
duct towards  other  men.     This  temper  is  accordingly  opposed  to 
pride  as  well  as  to  anger.     The  words  seem  to  have  been  often 
used  indiscriminately.     Humble  in  the  Heb.  is  once  and  again 
by  the  Seventy  rendered  meek,  and  conversely;  and  they  are 
sometimes  so  quoted  in  the  N.  T.   Nay,  the  very  phrase  for  lozoly 
in  spirit,  above  criticised,  shephal  ruach,  is  at  one  time  render- 
ed Trpai.v6viAjo(;,  meek. spirited,  at  another  rxTFemtppm,  humble.   But 
should  it  be  asked,  what  then  does  ru  vnvyMrt  add  to  the  sense  of 
oi  Trru^ot ;  I  think  the  phrase  to  which  Wh.  recurs  will  furnish 
us  with  an  answer.     Shephal  is  properly  rx^etvoi,  humilis  ;  the 
addition  of  ruach  is  equivalent  to  ru  vnvyMri.    Such  an  addition 
therefore  as  is  made  to  the  sense  of  T<«5r£<v«5  in  the  one  phrase  by 
Tu  TTvevf^xrt,  such  also  is  made  to  the  sense  of  ^T»;^Ja5  in  the  other, 
by  the  same  words  superadded.     It  may  be  thought  that  no  ad- 


34  NOTES  ON  tn.  r. 

dition  is  made  to  the  first,  the  simple  term  Ttt7retv<^  expressing  a 
quality  of  the  mind  ;  but  this  is  a  mistake  arising  from  the  ap> 
plication  of  the  Eng.  word  humble,  which  does  not  entirely  coin* 
cide  with  the  aforesaid  terms  in  the  ancient  tongues.  In  all  these 
the  word  properly  refers  to  meanness  of  condition.  In  the 
few  instances  Avherein  rccn-ei)i(^  signifies  humble,  and  rxTruvMo-ti 
humility,  there  may  be  justly  said  to  be  an  ellipsis,  of  t^  xxi^hcc 
or  T«  jryevf/MTt.  The  proper  word  for  humble  is  ru7ruvc(p^m,  for 
humility  Tx7istvo<p^o(rv\i>i.  As  therefore  rci,7F(tvo(p^uv,  rctTreiv®"  rjj  xap- 
hx,  and  T«^f<v(^  tm  ■^nviA.xn  (for  this  expression  also  occurs  in 
the  Sep,  Ps.  xxxiv.  18.),  denote  one  whose  mind  is  suited  to  the 
lowness  of  his  station,  so  tttux,®^  ''«  7rvevfA,»ri  denotes  one  w  hose 
mind  is  suited  to  the  poorness  of  his  circumstances.  As  the  for- 
mer imports  unambitious,  unaspiring  after  worldly  honours  or 
the  applause  of  men  ;  the  latter  imports  unrepining,  not  covetous 
of  earthly  treasure,  easily  satisfied,  content  with  little.  This 
and  humility  are  indeed  kindred  virtues,  b«t  not  the  same. 

Wet.  is  singular  in  thinking  that  the  words  ought  to  be  con- 
strued thus:  i/Mx,o(,piot  ru  TTvivf^dTt — 01  Trra^oi.  He  understands 
grviviMc,  to  mean  the  spirit  of  God,  and  renders  it  into  La.  Beati 
spii'itui  pauperes  ;  as  if  we  should  say,  Happy  in  the  Spirifs  ac~ 
count  are  the  poor.  He  urges  that  7rr»;^>o<  tm  7rvevf4.xrt  is  unexam- 
pled. But  is  it  more  so  than  (/.oncot^ioi  ru  -xuvfjuxn  ?  Or  do  we 
find  any  thing  in  Scripture  analogous  to  this  phrase  in  the  man- 
ner he  has  explained  it  ?  I  have  shown  that  there  is  at  least  one 
phrase,  rxTrtit®^  rw  Ts-vcvf^xri,  perfectly  similar  to  the  other,  w^hich 
may  well  serve  to  explain  it,  and  remove  his  other  objection,  that 
it  ought  to  mean  a  bad  quality.  Besides,  I  would  ask,  whether 
we  are  to  understand  in  verse  8th,  ttj  ^xphoe,  as  likewise  constru- 
ed with  fjLct>cc6pioi  ?  for  nothing  can  be  more  similar  than  the  ex- 
pressions f^XKuptoi  hi  TFTup/oi  ru  7rv£Vf^»Ti  and  fJLXKXptoi  oi  Ked^xpot  T>) 
■Kxpoix. 

5.  They  skull  inherit^  xvrot  x.Xi^p<i<ieifA.7ic-ss-i.  Vul.  Ipsi  posside~ 
tunt.  The  La.  word  possidebunt  sufficiently  corresponds  to  the 
Gr.  KXTipovoiMicrnTi :  which  generally  denotes  possessing  by  any 
title,  by  lot,  succession,  purchase,  conquest,  or  gift ;  I  therefore 
think  that  Cas.  judged  better  in  following  the  Vul.  than  Be,  who 
expresses  the  sentiment  by  a  circumlocution  which  appears  too 
positively  to  exclude  possession  of  every. other  kind.     Jpsiter- 


CH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  $6 

ram  hcpreditario  jure  obtincbunt.  But  as  the  speciality  which 
the  word  sometimes  conveys  may  be  more  simply  expressed  in 
Eng.  I  have  with  the  common  version  preferred  inherit  to  pos- 
sess. It  happily  accords  to  the  style  of  the  N.  T.  in  regard  both 
to  the  present  privileges  and  to  the  future  prospects  of  God's 
people.  They  are  here  denominated  sotis  of  God ;  and  if  sons, 
as  the  Apostle  argues,  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God^  and  co-heirs  Tzith 
Christ.  The  future  recompense  is  called  a  birth.right,  an  in. 
heritancc.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  17. 

^  The  land,  tuv  y-jv.  E,  T.  The  earth.  That  the  vrord  is  sus- 
ceptible of  either  sense  cannot  be  doubted.  The  question  is, 
which  is  the  genuine  sense  in  this  passage  ?  Let  it  be  observed, 
that  it  had,  long  before  then,  become  customary,  among  the  most 
enlightened  of  the  Jewish  nation,  to  adopt  the  phraseology  which 
the  sacred  writers  had  employed,  in  reference  to  ceremonial  ob. 
servances  and  temporal  promises,  and  to  affix  to  the  words  a  more 
sublime  meaning,  as  referring  to  moral  qualities,  and^to  eternal 
benefits.  This  might  be  illustrated,  if  necessary,  from  many 
passages  of  the  N.  T.  as  well  as  from  the  oldest  Jewish  writers. 
The  expression  under  examination  is  an  instance,  being  a  quota- 
tion from  Ps.  xxxvii.  11.  Now,  in  order  to  determine  the  sense 
of  the  word  here,  its  meaning  there  should  first  be  ascertained. 
Every  person  conversant  in  the  Heb.  knows  that  the  word  there 
used  (and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  Gr.  and  La.  words  by 
which  it  is  rendered)  sometimes  means  the  earth,  sometimes  a  par- 
ticular land  or  country.  Commonly  the  context,  or  some  epi- 
thet, or  the  words  in  construction,  remove  the  ambiguity.  That, 
in  the  passage  referred  to,  it  signifies  the  land,  namely  Canaan, 
promised  to  the  Patriarchs,  is  hardly  called  in  question.  As  for 
the  earth,  it  was  given,  says  the  Psalmist,  to  the  children  of  men  ; 
even  the  idolatrous  and  profane  were  not  excluded.  Whereas  this 
peculiar,  this  much  favoured  land,  God  reserved  for  the  patri- 
mony of  Israel,  Avhom  he  honoured  with  the  title  of  his  son,  his 
first-born.  To  this,  the  ancient  promises  given  to  the  Israelites 
had  all  a  manifest  reference.  It  is  true,  our  translators  have  ren- 
dered the  vvotd,  in  the  passage  of  the  Psalms  alluded  to,  the 
earth,  merely,  I  imagine,  that  it  might  be  conformable  to  what 
they  understood  to  be  the  sense  of  the  expression,  in  this  place, 
A  strong  proof  of  this  is  that  they  have  observed  no  uniformity, 
in  their  manner  of  translating  it,  in  this  very  Psalm.     The  word 


36  NOTES  ON  ch.  v. 

occurs  six  times.  Thrice  they  translate  it  the  land,  and  thrice 
the  earth.  Yet  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  reason  for  this  varia. 
tion  ;  for  no  two  things  can  be  more  similar  than  the  expressions 
so  differently  rendered.  Thus,  v.  11.  TTie  meek  shall  inherit  the 
earth  ;  v.  29.  The  righteous  shall  inherit  the  land.  Indeed  nothing 
can  be  plainer  to  one  who  reads  this  sacred  ode  with  attention, 
than  that  it  ought  to  be  rendered  land.,  throughout  the  whole. 
Peace,  security,  and  plenty,  in  the  /«/«/ which  the  Lord  their  God 
had  given  them,  are  the  purport  of  all  the  promises  it  contains. 
'  But,' it  may  be  said,  '  admit  this  were  the  meaning  ofthePsalm- 
'  ist,  are  we  to  imagine  that  the  evangelical  promise  given  by  our 
'  Lord,  is  to  be  confined,  in  the  same  manner,  to  the  possession 
'  of  the  earthly  Canaan  ?'  By  no  means.  Nevertheless  our  Lord's 
promise,  as  he  manifestly  intended,  ought  to  be  expressed,  in  the 
same  terms.  The  new  covenant,  which  God  hath  made  with  us, 
by  Jesus  Christ,  is  founded  on  better  promises  than  that  which  he 
made  with  the  Israelites,  by  Moses.  But  then,  the  promises,  as  well 
as  the  other  parts  of  the  Mosaic  covenant,  are  the  figures  or  sha, 
dows,  as  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  well  observes  (ch.  x.  1.),  of 
the  corresponding  parts  of  the  Christian  covenant.  Even  the  holy 
men  under  that  dispensation  were  taught,  by  the  Spirit,  to  use 
the  same  language,  in  regard  to  blessings  infinitely  superior  to 
those  to  which  the  terms  had  been  originally  appropriated.  Da- 
vid warns  the  people,  in  his  time,  of  the  danger  of  provoking 
God,  to  swear  concerning  them,  as  he  had  sworn  concerning 
their  fathers  in  the  desert,  that  they  should  not  enter  into  his 
rest.  Yet  the  people  were  at  that  rery  time  in  possession  of 
Canaan,  the  promised  rest,  and  consequently  could  not  be  affect- 
ed by  the  threat,  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  words.  Hence 
the  aforecited  author  justly  concludes  (ch.  iv.  9.),  that  the  in- 
spired penman  must  have  had  in  his  view  another  rest,  which 
still  remains  for  the  people  of  God,  and  from  which  men's  diso- 
bedience may  still  prove  the  cause  of  their  exclusion.  Moses  had 
his  land  of  promise,  with  the  prospect  of  which  he  roused  the 
Israelites.  Jesus  Christ  also  has  his,  wi:h  the  hope  of  which  he 
encourages  and  stimulates  his  disciples.  That  it  is  the  heavenly 
happiness  that  is  meant,  appears  to  me  certain  (for  all  the  promi- 
ses here  relate  to  things  spiritual  and  eternal),  but  still  conveyed 
under  those  typical  expressions  to  which  his  hearers  had  been  ha- 
bituated.   The  Rh.  in  Eng.  and  L.  Cl.  in  Fr.  are  the  only  trans^ 


c«.  t  S.  MATTHEW.  S7 

lators  into  modern  languages  with  whose  versions  I  am  acquaint- 
ed, who  have  expressed  this  properly.  L.  Cl.  says,  ilspossede. 
ront  lepays.  At  the  same  time  his  note  on  the  place  shews  that 
he  misunderstood  the  sense.  He  supposed  this  declaration  to  re- 
late solely  to  those  Jews  converted  to  Christianity,  who,  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  subversion  of  the  Jewish 
polity,  by  the  Romans,  were  allowed  to  live  peaceably  in  the 
country,  because  they  had  taken  no  part  in  the  war.  These  sen, 
tences  with  which  our  Lord's  doctrine  is  introduced,  are  to  be 
regarded  not  as  particular  predictions,  but  as  universal  axioms. 
All  those  who  fall  within  the  description,  the  poor^  the  meek,  the 
merciful,  in  any  age  or  country,  are  entitled  to  the  promise.  It 
is  impossible  that  they  should  have  been  understood  otherwisej  at 
the  time,  by  any  hearer.  The  general  tenor  of  the  expression? 
used,  unlimited  by  any  circumstance  of  time  or  place,  especially 
when  compared  with  the  scope  and  tendency  of  the  whole  dis- 
course, shews  manifestly  that  they  are  to  be  held  as  the  funda- 
mental  principles  of  the  new  dispensation,  to  be  introduced  by 
the  Messiah.  Besides,  all  the  other  promises  are  confessedly 
such  as  suit  the  nature  of  the  kingdom,  which  is  declared  by  its 
founder  and  sovereign  to  be  not  of  this  world.  How  unreasona- 
ble  is  it  then  to  think  that  this  must  be  understood  as  an  excep. 
tion  ?  Indeed  some  who  render  r^jv  ysjv  the  earth,  acknowledge 
that  heaven  is  meant.  But  how  vague  and  arbitrary  must  this 
way  of  expounding  appear,  when  we  consider  that  heaven  is  in 
this  very  discourse  contrasted  to  earth,  and  distinguished  fromiti 
That  our  Lord's  style  is  often  figurative  is  not  to  be  denied. 
But  the  figures  are  not  taken  at  random,  nor  to  be  interpreted 
by  every  body's  fancy.  They  are  adopted  according  to  certain 
rules  easily  discoverable  from  an  acquaintance  with  holy  writ, 
and  the  Jewish  laws  and  ceremonies.  And  of  those  rules,  no  one 
is  more  common  than  that  which  assigns  a  spiritual  and  sublime 
meaning,  to  expressions  in  the  law,  which  relate  merely  to  exter- 
nal rites,  and  temporal  benefits.  (See  the  N.  on  v.  8.)  I  shall 
only  add,  that  all  these  promises  are  in  effect  the  same,  but  pre- 
sented under  such  diiFerent  aspects  as  suit  the  different  charac. 
ters  recommended.  Thus  a  kingdom  is  promiseil  to  the  poor^ 
consolation  to  the  mourners,  an  inheritance  to  the  meek,  who 
are  liable  here  to  be  dispossessed  of  every  thing,  by  the  aspiring 
and  the  violent ;  and  so  of  the  rest. 

VOL.    IV.  5 


38  NOTES  ON  en.  y. 

4,  b.  In  the  Vul.  and  the  Cam.  these  verses  are  transposed. 
The  Vul.  is  the  only  version,  and  the  Cam.  the  only  MS.  where 
this  arrangement  is  found. 

6.  fVho  hunger  and  thirst  for  righteousness^  ot  TretvuvTei  xeci 
hi^avTei;  rtjv  ^ncutotrvvtiv.  In  the  ordinary  interpretation  to  hunger 
and  thirst  denotes  to  have  an  ardent  desire.  Maldonate  was  of 
opinion  that  the  words  ought  rather  to  be  rendered  icho  hunger 
and  thirst  because  of  righteousness  ;  that  is,  whose  righteous- 
ness or  integrity  has  occasioned  their  being  reduced  to  such  a 
state  of  indigence.  His  reasons  for  this  exposition  are  as  fol- 
lows:  1st,  That  they  who  are  in  the  literal  sense  hungry  and 
thirsty  are  here  meant,  there  is  reason  to  presume  from  the  pa- 
rallel passage  in  L.  where  the  words  are,  Ye  icho  hunger 
nozc,  without  the  addition  of  righteousness,  or  any  word 
corresponding  to  it.  2dly,  Though  thirst  is  by  the  sacred  au- 
thors often  used  metaphorically  for  the  desire  of  spiritual  good 
things,  there  is  not  any  clear  example  that  hunger  is  ever  so  ap- 
plied. 3dly,  Each  of  these  declarations,  commonly  called  bea- 
titudes, regards  a  particular  virtue,  and  not  a  virtuous  character 
in  general.  I  acknowledge  that  the  first  is  the  only  one  of  these 
reasons  which  appears  to  me  to  have  any  weight.  As  to  the  se- 
cond, a  single  instance  of  a  metaphorical  application,  when  plain 
from  the  context,  is  sufficient  evidence.  Besides,  though  hun. 
ger  simply  is  not  used  by  metaphor  for  the  desire  of  spiritual 
things,  the  spiritual  things  themselves  are  represented  by  bread 
and  by  meat,  as  well  as  by  drink  (Is.  Iv.  ] ,  2.  J.  vi.  27.) ;  and  our 
participation  in  them  is  represented  by  eating  as  well  as  by 
drinking  (J.  vi.  50,  1  Cor.  v.  2.).  Hunger  here  therefore, 
coupled  with  thirsty  may  be  accounted  sufficiently  explicit  for 
expressing  strong  desire  of  spiritual  things,  in  like  manner  as 
eating  coupled  with  drinking  denotes  an  ample  participation  in 
them.  In  tropes  so  closely  related,  the  sense  of  one  ascertains 
the  sense  of  the  other.  As  to  the  third  reason,  though  righteous- 
ness is  used  to  denote  the  whole  of  practical  religion,  to  hunger 
mid  thirst  for  righteousness  may,  not  improperly,  be  said  to 
express  one  particular  quality  only,  to  wit,  a  zeal  for  higher  at- 
tainments in  virtue  and  piety*  The  declaration  in  v.  10th  niay^ 
in  one  view,  be  considered  as  equally  general  with  this,  and  in 
another,  as  regarding  solely  the  virtue  of  perseverance  or  con- 


t;H.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  39 

stancy.  But  what  principally  weighs  with  me  is,  first,  the  con. 
sideration  that  the  common  interpretation  appears  to  have  been 
the  universal  interpretation  of  the  earliest  ages.  This  is  a  strong 
presumption  that  it  is  the  most  natural,  and  best  suited  to  the 
construction.  2dly,  The  omission  of  the  preposition  <5"<<«,  on  Mal- 
donate's  hypothesis,  is  not  at  all  suited  to  the  style  of  these  wri- 
ters ;  but  that  h-<pxa  is  sometimes  used  actively,  and  governs  the 
accusative  of  that  which  is  the  object  of  our  thirst,  we  are  au. 
thorized  by  Phavorinus  to  assert :  c-vvrcta-TiTxi^  says  that  lexico- 
grapher, uiTtxrix3i  xMt  yeviKi]^  uirtoiru)}  nt£V,  «$  re,  eo<ys!5-c  c-£  ;j  ■<^vx,t) 
M.if,  X.M  §f<l'U  THi  Mym.  The  former  of  these  examples  is  quoted 
from  Ps.  Ixii.  2.  answering  to  Ixiii.  1.  in  the  English  Bible, 
which  follows  the  Masoretic  Heb.  My  soul  thirsteth  for  thee. 
The  passage  appears  in  the  same  form  in  Trommius'  Concor- 
dance,  on  the  verb  ^i-^uu.  Yet  in  the  common  editions  of  the 
Sep.  the  pronoun  is  o-ot  not  o-i.  But  that  the  accusative  is  some- 
times used  as  well  as  the  dative  and  the  genitive,  is  manifest  from 
Wisd.  xi.  14.  a^'  o/mix  ^tKxioii  h-^ns-xyrti.  Besides,  the  sense 
which  Maldonate  gives,  is  included  in  v.  10.  and  this  I  think  a 
strong  objection  to  it. 

8.  The  dean  in  hearty  oi  ^aBxpot  r>,  xxpSix.  E.  T.  The  pure  in 
heart.  I  admit  that  this  is  a  just  expression  of  the  sense,  and 
mf!re  in  the  Eng.  idiom  than  mine.  My  only  reason  for  prefer- 
ring a  more  literal  version  of  the  word  r.x6»p(^  here  is,  because 
I  would,  in  all  such  instances,  preserve  the  allusion  to  be  found 
in  the  moral  maxims  of  the  N.  T.  to  the  ancient  ritual,  from 
which  the  metaphors  of  the  sacred  writers,  and  their  other  tropes, 
are  frequently  borrowed,  and  to  which  they  owe  much  of  their 
lustre  and.energy.  The  laws  in  regard  to  the  cleanness  of  the 
body,  and  even  of  the  garments,  if  neglected  by  any  person,  ex- 
cluded him  from  the  temple.  He  was  incapacitated  for  being  so 
much  as  a  spectator  of  the  solemn  service  at  the  altar.  The  Jews 
considered  the  empyreal  heaven  as  the  architype  of  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem.  In  the  latter,  they  enjoyed  the  symbols  of  God's 
presence,  who  spoke  to  them  by  his  ministers ;  whereas,  in  the 
former,  the  blessed  inhabitants  have  an  immediate  sense  of  the 
divine  presence,  and  God  speaks  to  them  face  to  face.  Our  Lord, 
preserving  the  analogy  between  the  two  dispensations,  intimates 
that  cleanness  will  be  as  necessary  in  order  to  precufC  admission 


40  NOTES  ON  cii.  tr 

into  the  Celestial  temple,  as  into  the  terrestrial.  But  as  the  pri-* 
Tilege  is  inconceivably  higher,  the  qualification  is  more  impor- 
tant. The  cleanness  is  not  ceremonial,  but  moral  ;  not  of  the 
outward  man,  but  of  the  inward.  The  same  idea  is  suggested, 
Ps.  xxiv.  When  such  allusions  appear  in  the  original,  they 
ought,  if  possible,  to  have  a  place  in  the  version. 

9i  The  peacemakers,  hi  (t^))yo7rotoi.  An.  the  paci/ic  :  Hey.  the 
peaceable.  Weakly  both.  With  us  these  words  imply  merely 
a  negative  quality,  an'd  are  equivalent  to  not  contentious,  not 
quarrelsome,  not  litigious.  More  is  comprised  here.  This  word 
is  not  found  in  any  other  part  of  Scripture,  but  (which  is  nearly 
the  same)  the  verb  ctpv^oTroua  of  the  same  origin  occurs.  Col.  i. 
20.  where  the  connection  shews  that  it  cannot  signify  to  be  gen- 
tle, to  be  peaceable,  but  actively  to  reconcile,  to  make  peace. 
Etymology  and  classical  use  also  concur  in  affixing  the  sense  of 
reconciler,  peacemaker,  to  ttptjyeTrotC^.  It  is  likewise  so  explain- 
ed by  Chrysostom.  Indeed,  if  no  more  were  meant  by  it  than 
those  pacifically  disposed,  nothing  additional,  would  be  given 
here,  to  what  is  implied  in  the  first  and  third  of  these  characters ; 
for  as  these  exclude  covetousness,  ambition,  anger,  and  pride, 
they  remove  all  the  sources  of  war,  contention,  and  strife.  Now. 
though  all  these  characters  given  by  our  Lord  are  closely  relat- 
ed, they  are  still  distinct. 

11.  Prosecute,  hu^ua-t.  E.  T.  Persecute.  Some  critics  think, 
not  improbably,  that  the  word  in  this  place  relates  to  the  prose^ 
cutions  of  the  disciples  (to  whom  Jesus  here  directly  addresses 
himself)  on  account  of  their  religion,  before  human  tribunals, 
tvhereof  he  often  warned  them  on  other  occasions.  In  this  verse, 
he  descends  to  particulars,  distinguishing  ^<»;6£<v  from  ovuh^uv, 
and  tiTretv  'ttxi  Tcot^ov  f  j!|M.«,  which  seem  also  to  be  used  in  reference 
to  judicial  proceedings.  In  the  preceding  verse,  and  in  the  fol- 
lowing, there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  verb  is  used  in  the  utmost 
latitude,  and  ought  to  be  rendered  persecute.  See  also  ch.  x,  23. 
xxiii.  34. 

15.  A  lamp,  Xiiyyov.  E.  T.  A  candle.  The  meaning  of  the 
word  is  lamp.  Candles  were  not  used  at  that  time  in  Judea  for 
lighting  their  houses.  Avx,nx  consequently  means  a  lamp.stand. 
not  a  candlestick. 


CH.  Y.  S.  MATTHEW.  4i 

^  Under  acorn  measure^  Ivo  rev  /lu^iov.  E.  T.  Under  a  bushel. 
But  they  had  no  such  measure.  And  though  it  is  true  that  any 
measure  of  capacity  will  suit  the  observation,  a  translator  ought 
not,  even  indirectly,  to  misrepresent  the  customs  of  the  people. 
The  measure  mentioned  by  the  Evangelist,  so  far  from  answering 
to  our  bushel,  was  less  than  out  peck.  But  as  nothing  here  de- 
pends on  the  capacity  of  the  measure,  it  is  better  to  adopt  the 
general  term,  than  to  introduce  uncouth  names,  without  necessi- 
ty. Diss.  VJIL  P.  I.  §  6. 

3  As  to  the  article  prefixed  to  fjiohov  and  A«;^jwav,  Sc.  says,  "  Ob- 
'"'  serve  how  the  article  loses  its  emphasis,  and  is  rendered  a  in- 
**  stead  of  the.''''  I  admit  that  the  article  may  be  in  some  cases 
redundant,- but  not  that  we  have  an  example  of  its  redundancy 
here.  Is  it  not  our  constant  way,  when  we  name  any  utensil 
•whereof  there  is  but  one  of  the  kind  in  the  house,  to  use  the  defi- 
nite article  ?  "  Bring  me  the  balance,  that  I  may  weigh  this." 
"  Take  the  bushel,  and  mete  the  grain."  And  even  when  there 
are  more  than  one,  if  one  be  superior  in  value  to  the  rest,  or  in 
more  frequent  use,  it  is  commonly  distinguished  in  the  same 
manner.  On  the  contrary,  when  there  are  more  of  a  kind,  and 
no  one  distinguished  from  the  rest,  we  express  ourselves  indefi- 
nitely, as,  "  Give  me  a  spoon:"  "  Set  a  chair  for  Mr.  Such-a- 
one."  Our  Lord's  similitude  is  taken  from  the  customs  of  fami- 
lies. He  therefore  uses  the  style  which  would  be  used  in  any 
house.  This  explains  sufficiently  why  he  says  a  lamp,  as  proba- 
bly most  houses  had  more  than  one,  but  the  modius,  there  being 
but  one,  and  the  stand,  as  one  might  be  in  more  frequent  use 
than  the  rest,  for  the  accommodation  of  the  family.  However, 
as  the  sense  is  sufficiently  expressed  either  way,  I  have  preferred 
the  indefinite  manner  in  my  version,  being  better  adapted  to  the 
more  general  terms  I  was  obliged  to  adopt.  See  N.  on  eh.  xxvii. 
61. 

17.  To  subvert  the  law  or  the  prophets,  xaTaXvc-xi  tov  vo/^v  j; 
♦tf?  fr^o^flTo?.  E.  T.  To  destroy.  Of  the  different  senses  which 
have  been  assigned  to  the  verb  ycotroiXva-m,  one  is,  when  applied  to 
a  law,  to  break  or  violate.  Though  this  is  the  sense  of  the  sim- 
ple verb  Xvu,  v.  19.  it  cannot  be  the  sense  of  the  compound  here. 
Nobody  could  suppose  that  it  needed  a  divine  mission  to  qualify 
one  to  transgress  the  law,  which  so  many,  merely  from  the  de- 


42  NOTES  ON  c».  v.: 

prayity  of  their  own  minds,  flagrantly  did  every  day.  Another 
sense,  which  suits  better  the  context,  is  authoritatively  to  repeal 
or  abrogate.  This  appears  proper  as  applied  to  the  law,  but 
harsh  as  applied  to  the  prophets,  though  by  the  prophets  are 
meant,  by  a  common  metonymy,  the  prophetical  writings.  But 
even  these  we  never  speak  of  abolishing  or  abrogating.  To  de- 
stray  is  rather  saying  too  much,  and  is  more  in  the  military  style 
than  in  the  legislative.  If  every  copy  and  scrap  of  these  writ- 
ings were  obliterated  or  burnt,  we  could  not  say  more  than  that 
they  were  destroyed.  The  context,  in  my  opinion,  shows  that 
the  import  of  the  word  here  is  not  directly  to  rescind  or  repeal, 
but  indirectly  to  supersede  a  standing  rule  by  the  substitution  of 
another  ;  which,  though  it  does  not,  formally,  annul  the  preced- 
ing, may  be  said,  in  effect,  to  subvert  it.  This  appears  fully  to 
express  the  sense,  and  is  equally  adapted  to  both  terms,  the  law 
and  the  prophets. 

°  But  to  ratify,  uXXxTrXfipae-xi.  E.  T.  But  to  fulfil.  The  sense 
of  the  verb  -TrXtipou  is  ascertained  by  K.ot.T<x,Xvu.  We  have  seen  that 
the  meaning  of  this  word  cannot  be  to  break,  and  therefore  it  is 
highly  probable  that  the  other  means  more  than  to  obey.  The 
proper  opposite  of  weakening  and  subverting  a  law  is  confirm- 
ing and  ratifying  it.  See  N.  on  ch.  iii.  15.  Some  of  great 
name  translate  it  here  to  complete,  perfect,  or  fill  up,  and  think 
it  alludes  to  the  precepts,  as  it  were,  superadded  in  this  discourse. 
I  own  there  is  a  plausibility  in  this  explanation ;  some  of  our 
Lord's  precepts  being,  to  appearance,  improvements  on  the  law. 
Yet  I  cannot  help  thinking,  that  these  divine  sayings  are  to  be 
regarded  rather  as  explanatory  of  the  law,  in  showing  its  extent 
and  spirituality,  than  as  additions  to  it,  not  binding  on  men  be- 
fore, but  deriving  their  power  to  oblige,  purely  from  their  pro- 
mulgation by  Jesus  Christ.  Besides,  I  find  na  example  of  the 
sense  to  fill  up  in  any  passage  that  can  be  reckoned  analogous 
to  the  present.  For  the  phraseT?/^  up  the  measure  of  your  fa. 
thers  cannot  surely  be  accounted  of  the  number.  The  vioxA  mea- 
sure there  leaves  no  room  to  hesitate.  It  is  otherwise  here.  The 
interpretation,  make  fully  known,  given  by  Benson  (Essay  con- 
cerning abolishing  of  the  Ceremonial  Law,  ch.  ii.  sect.  2.),  though 
not  implausible,  does  not  make  so  exact  a  contrast  to  the  preced- 
ing word  subvert,  nor  is  it,  in  this  application^  so  well-establish- 
ed by  use. 


CH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  43 

18.  Verity  I  say  unto  you,  c.iA.n'i  Xiy&  i/^iv.  As  Mt.  has  retain- 
ed the  Heb.  word  amen,  in  such  affirmations,  and  is,  in  this, 
followed  by  the  other  Evangelists,  though  less  frequently  by  L. 
than  by  the  rest,  it  is  not  improper  here,  where  the  word  first 
occurs,  to  inquire  into  its  import.  Its  proper  signification  is 
true,  vcrus,  as  spoken  of  things,  observant  of  truth,  verax,  as 
spoken  of  persons,  sometimes  truth  in  the  abstract.  In  the  O. 
T.  it  is  sometimes  used  adverbially,  denoting  a  concurrence  in 
any  wish  or  prayer,  and  is  rendered  by  the  Seventy  yt^oiTo,  so 
be  it.  In  this  application  the  word  has  been  adopted  into  most 
European  languages.  In  the  N.  T.  it  is  frequently  used  in  affir- 
mation. Now  as  L.  has  been  more  sparing  than  the  other  Evan- 
gelists, in  the  use  of  this  Oriental  term,  it  is  worth  while  to  ob- 
serve, when  he  is  relating  the  same  passages  of  our  Lord's  history 
with  them,  what  word  he  has  substituted  for  the  amen,  as  this 
will  shew  in  what  manner  he  understood  the  Ileb.  adverb.  The 
same  prediction  which  in  Mt.  xvi.  8.  is  ushered  in  by  the  words 
uiA-vii  Xeyu  h(4.iv  is  thus  introduced,  L.  ix.  27.  Xeya  Cf^tv  uXuB-u^ 
which  answers  to  truly  or  verily  with  us.  Another  example  of 
this  interpretation  we  find,  on  comparing  Mr.  xii.  43.  with  L. 
xxi.  3.  The  only  other  example,  in  passages  entirely  parallel, 
is  Mt.  xxiii.  36.  and  L.  xi.  51.  where  the  uf^nv  of  the  former  is, 
by  the  latter,  rendered  by  the  affirmative  adverb  ^ut.  I  have  not 
observed  any  passage  in  the  O.  T.  wherein  the  word  amen  is 
used  in  affirming  ;  and  therefore  I  consider  this  idiom  in  the  Gos. 
pels  as  more  properly  a  Syriasm  than  a  Hebraism.  Indeed  some 
derivatives  from  amen  often  occur  in  affirmation.  Such  as  amenah 
Gen.  XX.  12.  Jos.  vii.  20.  rendered  in  the  Sep.  aXytB-ax;.  Such  als© 
is  amenam,  which  occurs  oftner,  and  is  rendered  «a;j.V,  e^t'  «a«- 
^eixi,  ev  aXyi^-iici,  or  ovra^^  exactly  Corresponding  to  the  applicatiou 
made  of  «,ity;»  in  the  Gospels.  This  is  as  strong  evidence  of  the 
import  of  this  word,  in  the  N.  T.  as  the  nature  of  the  thing  will 
admit.  Nor  does  there  appear  the  shadow  of  a  reason  for  the 
opinion  maintained  by  some  critics  that,  when  used  thus,  it  is  of 
the  nature  of  an  oath.  It  is  true  that  to  swear  by  the  God  of 
truth,  elohe.amen,  is  mentioned  (Is.  Ixv.  16.)  as  an  oath;  and 
so  doubtless  would  it  be  to  swear  by  the  God  of  knozdedge,  or  by 
the  God  of  power.  But  does  any  body  conclude  hence,  that  the 
words  knowledge  and  power,  wheresoever  found,  or  howsoever 
applied,  include  an  oath  ?  It  has  also  beeu  'urged,  that  in  the  trial 


44  NOTES  ON  cii.  v. 

df  jealousy  the  woman  is  said  to  be  charged  with  an  oath  of  curs- 
ing (Num.  Y.  22.),  when  all  that  was  required  of  her  was  to  say, 
{imeUy  amen^  to  the  imprecation  pronounced  upon  her  by  the  priest 
in  case  she  was  guilty  of  the  crime  suspected.  This  was  doubtless 
an  imprecation  and  an  oath,  for  amen,  said  in  that  manner,  was 
equivalent  to  the  repetition  of  the  words  spoken  by  the  priest. 
Should  the  magistrate  in  an  Eng.  judicatory  (where  the  oath  ad- 
ministered to  witnesses  is  still  in  the  form  of  an  imprecation)  re- 
hearse  the  words,  concluding  as  usual,  so  help  you  God,  and  re- 
quire of  the  witness  only  to  say  amen,  it  would  be  justly  termed 
an  oath,  and  an  imprecation  against  himself,  if  he  gave  a  false  tes- 
timony.  But  does  any  man  conclude  hence  that  amen  implies 
either  oath  or  imprecation,  when  he  subjoins  it  to  prayers  for 
health  and  safety  ?  This  character  does  not  result  from  any  single 
word,  but  from  the  scope  and  structure  of  the  whole  sentence. 

Yet  a  critic  of  no  less  eminence  than  Father  Si,  after  translat- 
ing properly  uiA.TtvXtya  byM^.  Mr.  viii,  12.  je  vous  assure,  subjoins 
in  a  note,  autrement,  je  vous  jure.  With  how  little  reason  this 
note  is  added,  let  the  judicious  reader  determine.  Our  Lord 
often  recurs  to  this  solemn  form  of  asseveration  in  this  discourse 
upon  the  Mount,  where  he  expressly  forbids  his  disciples  the  use 
of  oaths  in  their  intercourse  with  one  another.  How  would  it 
have  sounded  from  him  to  address  them  in  this  manner,  '  Swear 
'  not  in  any  form  ;  but  let  your  answer  to  what  is  asked  be  simply 
'  yes  or  no  ;  for  I  swear  to  you,  that  whatever  exceedeth  these 
'  proceedeth  from  evil  ?'  How  would  this  suit  the  harmony  which 
so  eminentl}'  subsists  between  his  precepts  and  example?  In  fact, 
his  solemn  manner  was  calculated  to  impress  the  hearers  with  a 
sense,  not  so  much  of  the  reality,  as  of  the  importance,  of  what 
was  affirmed  ;  the  aim  was  more  to  rouse  attention  than  enforce 
belief. 

^  One  iota,  luru,  h.  E.  T.  One  jot.  I  thought  it  better  here, 
with  most  Itn.  and  Fr.  translators,  to  retain  the  Gr.  word  than 
to  employ  a  term  which,  if  it  have  a  meaning,  hardly  differs  in 
meaning  from  the  word  tittle  immediately  following.  This  could 
be  the  less  objected  against,  as  our  translators  have  oftner  than 
once  introduced  the  name  of  two  other  Gr.  letters,  alpha  and 
omega,  in  the  Apocalypse. 

^  Without  attaining  its  end^  let^  c^*  yet^teu,     L,  ii.  2,  N, 


CH.  T.  S.  MATTHEW.  45 

19.  Violate^  Xvo-tj.  It  is  evident  that  the  sense  of  the  simple 
Xva  is  not  here  the  same  with  that  of  the  compound  kmtxXvu  in  \. 
17th.  The  verbs  contrasted  are  different,  tcarxXva  to  wXtipau^  Xva 
to  votiu.  With  regard  to  laws,  the  opposite  to  subverting  is  ra- 
tifying, to  violating  is  practising.  This  is  a  further  evidence  that 
more  is  meant  in  v.  17th  by  ;rA;j/)(j«  than  barely  obeying.  And  of 
the  sense  I  have  given  it,  we  have  here  an  actual  example.  For 
what  tends  more  to  ratify  a  law  than  additional  sanctions,  with 
which  it  was  not  formerly  enforced  ? 

^  Or,  Kui.  E.  T.  And.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  wherein  the 
copulative  has  the  force  of  a  disjunctive.  The  conjunction  does 
but  save  the  repetition  of  a  common  clause,  which  belongs  seve- 
rally to  the  words  coupled.  This  remark  will  be  better  under- 
stood by  resolving  the  sentence  into  the  parts,  whereof  it  is  an 
abridged  expression.  Whoever  shall  violate  these  commandments, 
shall  be  in  no  esteem  in  the  reign  of  heaven  ;  and  whoever  shall 
teach  others  to  violate  them,  shall  be  in  no  esteem,  c^-c.  Here  the 
sense,  with  the  aid  of  the  copulative,  is  evidently  the  same  with 
that  expressed  disjunctively  in  the  version.  One  reason,  beside 
the  scope  of  the  passage,  for  understanding  the  conjunction  in 
this  manner  is  because  the  verbs  Aye-;;  and  hSxlvi  are  separated  in 
the  original,  each  having  its  regimen.  '05  sm  av  Xva-ij  f^ixv  rut  a. 
roXm — Koti  h^ot^y)  stu  ry;  MyS^MTrm;.  Consequently  the  kui  is  not 
to  be  understood  disjunctively  in  the  end  of  the  verse,  where  the 
verbs  are  more  intimately  connected,  o?  $'cev  ■Troniin)  x.xt  ^J«|j}. 

^  lVe7-e  it  the  least  of  these  commandments ^  f^ixv  reav  aroXut 
TUTm  rm  e>.x^i?-Mv,  E.  T.  One  of  these  least  command/nettts. 
But  if  the  commandments  here  mentioned  were  Christ's  least  com. 
ma?idmenis,  what,  it  may  be  asked,  were  the  greatest  ?  or,  Why 
have  we  no  examples  of  the  greatest  ?  That  this  phrase  is  not  to 
be  so  understood,  our  translators  themselves  have  shewn  by  their 
way  of  rendering  ch.  xxv.  40.  45.  The  clause  must  therefore  be 
explained  as  if  arranged  in  this  manner — i^.iccv  ruv  iXct^K^ut  rm  ev. 
ToXm  TiiT»v,  the  three  last  words  being  the  regimen  of  the  adjec- 
tive,  and  not  in  concord  with  it. 

**  Shall  be  in  no  esteem  in  the  reign  of  heaven — shall  be 
highly  esteemed.,  eXa^is-og  xX>iStie-eTcct  iv  t»;  pma-tXiicc  rut  t^^ocvuv—' 
«T(^  f^sycti  x.Xij.'ha'erxi.  E.  T.  He  shall  be  called  the  least  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven — he  shall  be  called  great.  To  be  called  great 
and  to  be  called  little,  for  to  be  esteemed  and  to  be  disesteemed^ 

VOL.  lY.  6 


46  NOTES  ON  ch.  f , 

is  so  obvious  a  metonymy  of  tjie  effect  for  the  cause,  that  it  natu- 
rally suggests  itself  to  every  discerning  reader.  By  rendering 
therefore  jSaa-iXeix  rm  npxvm^  agreeably  to  its  meaning  in  most 
places,  the  reign  of  heaven,  that  is,  the  Gospel  dispensation, 
there  is  not  the  smallest  difficulty  in  the  passage.  But  if  this 
phrase  be  rendered  the  kmgdom  of  heaven,  as  referring  to  the 
state  of  the  blessed,  and  if  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in  that  king. 
dom  mean,  as  some  explain  it,  he  shall  never  be  admitted  into 
it,  a  most  unnatural  figure  of  speech  is  introduced,  whereof  I  do 
not  recollect  to  have  seen  an  example  in  any  author,  sacred  or 
profane. 

20.  Excel,  'jTipiTo-evm].  E.  T.  Exceed.  The  original  word  ex- 
presses a  superiority  either  in  quantity  or  in  kind.  The  latter 
difference  suits  the  context  at  least  as  well  as  the  former. 

21.  That  it  zscas  said  to  the  ancients,  on  eppeB-tj  roii  ap^onoic.  E. 
T.  That  it  was  said  by  them  of  old  time.  Be.  Dictum  fuissc  a 
veteribus.  Be.  was  the  first  interpreter  of  the  N.  T.  who  made 
the  ancients  those  by  whom,  and  not  those  to  whom,  the  senten- 
ces here  quoted  were  spoken.  These  other  La,  versions,  the 
Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Cal.  and  Pise,  are  all  against  him.  Among 
the  Protestant  translators  into  modern  tongues,  Be.  whose  work 
■was  much  in  vogue  with  the  reformed,  had  his  imitators.  Dio. 
in  Itn.  rendered  it  chefu  detto  dagli  antichi  ;  the  G.  F.  qu^il  a 
ete  dit  par  les  anciens.  So  also  the  common  Eng.  But  all  the 
Eng.  versions  of  an  older  date,  even  that  executed  at  Geneva, 
say  to  them  oj  old  time.  Lu.  in  like  manner,  in  his  Ger.  trans- 
lation says,  5U  ten  altcit.  I  have  a  Protestant  translation  in  Itn. 
and  Fr.  published  by  Giovan  Luigi  Paschale  in  1555,  the  year 
before  the  first  edition  of  Be.'s  (the  place  not  mentioned),  which 
renders  it  in  the  same  way  with  all  preceding  translators,  with- 
out exception,  a  gli  antichi,  and  aux  anciens.  All  the  late  trans, 
lators,  Fr.  and  Eng.  have  returned  to  the  uniform  sense  of  anti- 
quity, rendering  it  to,  not  by,  the  ancients.  For  the  meaning  of 
a  word  or  phrase,  which  frequently  occurs  in  scripture,  the  first 
recourse  ought  to  be  to  the  sacred  writers,  especially  the  writer 
of  the  book  where  the  passa-re  occurs.  Now  the  verb  ^lu  (and 
the  same  may  be  observed  of  its  synonymas)  in  the  passive  voice, 
where  the  speaker  or  speakers  are  mentioned,  has  uniformly  the 
speaker  in  the  genitive  case,  preceded  by  the  preposition  utto  or 


cH.  V.  b.  MATTHEW.  47 

hx.  And  in  no  book  does  this  occur  oftener  than  in  Mt.  See  ch.  ii. 
15. 17.  23.  iii.  13.  iv.  14.  viii.  17.  xii.  17.  xiii.  35.  xxi.  4.  xxiv.  15. 
xxvii.  9.  xxii.  31.  In  this  last  we  have  an  example  both  of  those 
to  whom,  and  of  him  by  whom,  the  thing  was  said,  the  former 
in  the  dative,  the  latter  in  the  genitive  with  the  preposition  i^ra. 
When  the  persons  spoken  to  are  mentioned,  they  are  invariably 
in  the  dative,  Rom.  ix.  12.  26.  Gal.  iii.  16.  Apoc.  vi.  11.  ix.  4. 
With  such  a  number  of  examples  on  one  side  (yet  these  are  not 
all),  and  not  one  from  Scripture  on  the  opposite,  I  should  think 
it  very  assuming  in  a  translator,  without  the  least  necessity,  to 
reject  the  exposition  given  by  all  who  had  preceded  him.  It  has 
been  pleaded  that  something  like  an  example  has  been  found  in 
the  construction  of  one  or  two  other  verbs,  neither  synonymous 
nor  related  in  meaning.  Thus  Trp®^  ro  6ex9-i]i>xi  ecvroti  ch.  vi.  1. 
means  to  be  seen  by  them.  0£««ffc«j  in  Gr.  answers  to  videor  in 
La.  And  the  argument  would  be  equally  strong  in  regard  to 
La.  to  say,  because  visutn  est  illis  signifies  it  appeared  to  them. 
that  is,  «7  teas  seen  by  them  ;  dictum  est  illis  must  also  signify  it 
was  said  by  them.  The  authority  of  Herodot-us  (who  wrote  in 
a  style  somewhat  resembling,  but  in  a  dialect  exceedingly  unlike, 
that  of  the  N.  T.),  in  regard  to  a  word  in  frequent  use  in  Scrip- 
ture, appears  to  me  of  no  conceivable  weight  in  the  question. 
Nor  can  any  thing  account  for  such  a  palpable  violence  done  the 
sacred  text,  by  a  man  of  Be.'s  knowledge,  but  that  he  had  too 
much  of  the  polemic  spirit  (the  epidemical  disease  of  his  time)  to 
he  in  all  respects  a  faithful  translator.      Diss.  X.  P.  V.  §  5. 

21,  22.  Shall  be  obnoxious  to,  rioy,^  f«"«*'-  E-  T-  shall  be  in 
danger  of.  To  be  in  danger  o/evil  of  any  kind,  is  one  thing, 
to  be  objioxious  to  it.,  is  another.  The  most  innocent  person  may 
be  in  danger  of  death,  it  is  the  guilty  only  who  are  obnoxious  to 
it.  The  interpretation  here  given  is  the  only  one  which  suits 
both  the  import  of  the  Gr.  word,  and  the  scope  of  the  passage. 

22.  Unjustly.,  emt).  This  word  is  wanting  in  two  MSS.  one 
of  them  the  Vat.  of  great  antiquity.  There  is  no  word  answer- 
ing to  it  in  the  Vul.  nor  in  the  Eth.  Sax.  and  Ara.  versions,  at 
least  in  the  copies  of  the  Ara.  transcribed  in  the  Polyglots,  which 
Si.  observes  to  have  been  corrected  on  the  Vul.  and  which  are 
consequently  of  no  authority  as  evidences.  Jerom  rejected  it, 
imagining  it  to  be  an  interpolation  of  some  transcriber  desirous 


48  NOTES  ON  ch.  v. 

to  soften  the  rigour  of  the  sentiment,  and,  in  this  opinion,  was 
followed  by  Augustine.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  in  all  the  other 
Gr.  MSS.  now  extant.  A  corresponding  word  was  in  the  Itc. 
or  La.  Vul.  before  Jerom.  The  same  can  be  said  of  these  an- 
cient versions,  the  Sy.  Go.  Cop.  Per.  and  the  unsuspected  edition 
of  the  Ara.  published  by  Erpenius.  Chrysostom  read  as  we  do, 
and  comments  on  the  word  ukti.  The  earliest  Fathers,  both  Gr, 
and  La.  read  it.  This  consent  of  the  most  ancient  ecclesiastic 
writers,  the  two  oldest  versions,  the  Itc.  and  the  Sy.  the  almost 
universal  testimony  of  the  present  Gr.  MSS.  taken  together, 
give  ground  to  suspect  that  the  exclusion  of  that  adverb  rests  ul- 
timately  on  the  authority  of  Jerom,  who  must  have  thought  this 
limitation  not  of  a  piece  with  the  strain  of  the  discourse.  I  was 
of  the  same  opinion,  for  some  time,  aud  strongly  inclinable  to 
reject  it;  but,  on  maturer  reflection,  judged  this  too  vague  a 
principle  to  warrant  any  alteration  which  common  sense,  and  the 
scope  of  the  place,  did  not  render  necessary.  Mr.  Wes.  rejects 
this  adverb,  because,  in  his  opinion,  it  brings  our  Lord's  instruc- 
tions on  this  head,  down  to  the  Pharisaic  model ;  for  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees,  he  says,  would  have  condemned  causeless  anger  as 
well  as  Jesus  Christ.  No  doubt  they  would.  They  would  have 
also  condemned  the  indulgence  of  libidinous  thoughts  and  looks. 
[See  Lightfoot,  Horae  Hebraicae,  Sfc.  on  v.  28.]  But  the  diffe- 
rence consisted  in  this,  the  generality  of  the  Scribes,  at  that  time, 
considered  such  angry  words,  and  impure  looks,  and  thoughts,  as 
being  of  little  or  no  account,  in  themselves,  and  to  be  avoided 
solely,  from  m^otives  of  prudence.  They  might  ensnare  men  into 
the  perpetration  of  atrocious  actions,  the  only  evils  which,  by 
their  doctrine,  were  transgressions  of  the  law,  and  consequently, 
could  expose  them  to  the  judgment  of  God.  The  great  error 
which  our  Lord,  in  this  chapter,  so  severely  reprehends,  is  their 
disposition  to  consider  the  divine  law,  as  extending  merely  to 
the  criminal  and  overt  acts  expressly  mentioned  in  it.  From 
these  acts,  according  to  them,  if  a  man  abstained,  he  was,  in  the 
eye  of  the  laAv,  perfectly  innocent,  and  nowise  exposed  to  divine 
judgment.  We  are  not,  however,  to  suppose  that  this  manner  of 
treating  the  law  of  God  was  universal  among  them,  though  doubt, 
less  then  very  prevalent.  The  writings  of  Philo  in  that  age,  and 
some  of  their  Rabbies  since,  sufficiently  show  that  the  Jews  have 
always  had  some  moralists  among  them,  who,  as  well  as  some 


CH.  T.  S.  MATTHEW.  49 

Christian  casuists,  could  refine  on  the  precepts  of  their  religion^ 
by  stretching  them,  even  to  excess. 

^  To  the  council^  ru  a-vtiSptu.  It  might  have  been  rendered  to 
the  sanhedrim^  G-vvs^picv  being  the  ordinary  name  given  to  that 
supreme  judicatory.  I  accordingly  call  it  so  in  those  places  of 
the  history,  where  it  is  evident  that  no  other  could  be  meant.  But 
as  the  term  is  general,  and  may  be  used  of  any  senate  or  council, 
though  very  differently  constituted  from  the  Jewish,  I  thought 
it  better  here  not  to  confine  it.  It  is  not  improbable  also,  that 
there  is  an  allusion  in  the  word  Kpura,  judgment,  to  the  smaller 
or  city-councils,  consisting  of  twenty-three  judges. 

^  Txicx  and  f^ape.     Preface  to  this  Gospel.  §  25. 

*  r££vv«v.     Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  1. 

26.  Farthing.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  L  §  10. 

27.  The  words  reii  ctpx»ioii  are  not  found  in  a  great  number 
of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  and  ancient  versions,  particularly  the 
Sy.    The  Vul.  indeed  has  them.     Mill  and  Wetstein  reject  them. 

28.  Another  man^s  it^tfe,  ywctuu.  E.  T.  Aiooman.  Er.  Uxo- 
rem  alterius.  The  word  yvr/)  in  Gr.  like  Jemme  in  Fr.  signifies  - 
both  woman  and  zoife.  The  corresponding  word  in  Ileb.  is  lia- 
ble to  the  same  ambiguity.  Commonly  the  distinction  is  made 
by  some  noun  or  pronoun,  which  appropriates  the  general  name. 
But  it  is  not  in  this  way  only  that  it  is  discovered  to  signify  wife. 
Of  the  meaning  here  given  and  ascertained  in  the  same  way  by 
the  context,  we  have  examples,  Prov.  vi.  32.  Ecclus.  xxvi.  7. 
Wet.  has  produced  more  instances  ;  but  in  a  case  so  evident 
these  may  suffice.  If  we  translate  y^votixot  woman,  we  ought  to 
render  ei^^ix^vTi))  uvthv  hath  debauched  her.  The  Gr.  word  ad- 
mits this  latitude.  Thus  Lucian  (Dial.  Dor.  et  Thet.)  says  of 
Acrisius,  when  his  daughter  Danae,  whom  he  had  devoted  to  per. 
petual  virginity,  proved  with  child,  utto  nvoi  y-ifMiy^eva-B^xt  oii^.S-etr, 
avrttv,  ab  aliquo  stupratam  fuisse  illam  arbilratus.  But  I  pre- 
fer the  other  way,  as  by  changing  here  the  interpretation  of  the 
word  fi-otxivu,  the  intended  contrast  between  our  Lord's  doctrine 
and  that  of  the  Jews  is  in  a  great  measure  lost. 

^  hi  order  to  cherish  impure  desire,  Trpog  to  eTriOvf^rxi  uvrta, 
E.T.  To  lust  after  her.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  Ad  concupisccndum 
earn.  Pise.  Ut  earn  concupiscat.  The  Gr.  preposition  jr/ie?  be- 
fore an  infinitive  with  the  article  clearly  marks  the  intention,  not 


30  NOTES  ON  en.  v. 

the  effect.  This  all  the  La.  versions  also  do.  The  expression, 
ch.  vi.  1.  sr^es  TO  Beu^nioti  uvreig^  here  rendered  in  order  to  be  ob. 
served  by  them^  is  perfectly  similar,  and  is  manifestly  employed 
to  express  the  intention  from  which  the  Pharisees  act.  ripoi  to 
means,  therefore,  in  order  to,  to  the  end  that ;  whereas  «rE,  which 
we  have  ch.  viii.  24.  and  L.  v.  7.  signifies  so  as  to,  insomuch  that, 
and  marks  solely  the  effect.  When  an  expression,  with  either  of 
these  prepositions,  is  rendered  into  Eng.  simply  by  the  infinitive, 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  we  are  to  understand  it  as  expressing 
the  intention  or  the  effect,  and  whether  we  should  supply  before 
the  sign  of  the  infinitive  the  words  in  order,  or  so  as.  Hence  it 
is  evident,  that  the  common  version  of  this  passage  is  not  so  ex- 
plicit as  the  original. 

29.  Insnare  thee,  c-Kxv^xXi^et  ere.  Y,.T.  Offend  thee.  Vul. 
Scandalizat  te.  Nothing  can  be  farther  from  expressing  the 
sense  of  the  Gr.  term  than  the  Eng.  word  offend,  in  any  sense 
wherein  it  is  used.  Some  render  the  expression  cause  thee  to 
offend.  This  is  much  better,  but  does  not  give  fully  the  sense, 
as  it  does  not  hint  either  what  kind  of  offence  is  meant,  or  against 
whom  committed.  The  translators  from  the  Vul.  have  generally, 
after  the  example  of  that  version,  retained  the  original  word, 
Sa.  says,  Vous  scandalize ;  Si.  no  better,  Vous  est  un  sujet  de 
scandale  ;  the  Rh.  Scandalize  thee.  This  I  consider  as  no  trans- 
lation, because  the  words  taken  together  convey  no  conceivable 
meaning.  The  common  version  is  rather  a  mistranslation,  be- 
cause the  meaning  it  conveys  is  not  the  sense  of  the  original.  The 
word  o-xctv^aiMv  literally  denotes  any  thing  which  causes  our 
stumbling  or  falling,  or  is  an  obstacle  in  our  way.  It  is  used, 
by  metaphor,  for  whatever  proves  the  occasion  of  the  commission 
of  sin.  The  word  7rxyi<;,  snare,  is  another  term,  which  is,  in 
Scripture,  also  used  metaphorically,  to  denote  the  same  thing. 
Nay,  so  perfectly  synonymous  are  these  words  in  their  figurative 
acceptation,  that,  in  the  Sep  the  Heb.  word  lypm  mokesh,  an- 
swering to  TTxyii;,  laqueus,  a  snare,  is  oftener  translated  by  the 
Gr.  word  a-KccvSocXev  than  by  9r«y/5,  or  any  other  term  whatever. 
Thus  Josh,  xxiii.  13.  What  is  rendered  in  Eng.  literally  from 
the  Heb.  They  shall  be  snares  and  traps  unto  you  is,  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  fc-ovT«(  hfjLiv  iic,  TTxyt^xi  x.xi  eii  o-kxvSxXx.  Jud.  ii.  3.  Their 
Gods  shall  be  a  snare  unto  you  'Oi  3-eei  xvrm,  sc-evrxt  w,t4(v  ?<?  tkxv. 


cH.  V.  S.  MATTHEW.  51 

<?«A«y.  viii.  27.  which  thing  became  a  snare  unto  Gideon,  sysmo 
Tu  Tihm  ii(i  (TKciv^xXov.  1  K.  xviii.  21.  that  she  may  be  a  Mure  to 
hhn^  Bfiti  fr««  ocvru  eig  e-iatvSxMv.  Ps.  Gr.  cv.  cvi.  36.  which  were 
a  snare  unto  them^  y.xi  tymti^ri  xvretg  m  G-x.ocv^a,?Mv.  The  word 
c-x»A8t;,  which  is  equivalent,  is  also  used  by  the  Seventy,  in  trans- 
lating the  same  Heb.  word.  From  the  above  examples,  which  are 
not  all  that  occur,  it  is  manifest  that,  in  the  idiom  of  the  syna- 
gogue, one  common  meaning  of  the  word  c-KavS'xXov  is  snare  ;  and 
that,  therefore,  to  render  it  so  in  scripture,  where  it  suits  the 
sense,  is  to  translate,  both  according  to  the  spirit  of  the  writer, 
and  according  to  the  letter.  The  anonymous  version  uses  the  same 
word. 

32.  Except  for  whoredom,  -Trcx^tur®^  Mya  Tro^vncti;.  E.  T.  sav- 
ing for  the  cause  of  fornication.  The  term  fornication  is  here 
improper.  The  Gr.  word  is  not,  as  the  Eng.  confined  to  the 
commerce  of  a  man  and  a  woman  who  are  both  unmarried.  It 
is  justly  defined  by  Parkhurst,  "  Any  commerce  of  the  sexes  out 
of  lawful  marriage."  To  this  meaning  of  the  word  ^ra^KE/*  ety- 
mology points,  as  well  as  scriptural  use.  It  is  the  translation  of 
the  Heb.  word  c:»2iJt  and  nw  which  are  employed  with  equal  lati- 
tude, as  one  may  soon  be  convinced,  on  consulting  Trommius' 
Concordance.  The  word,  indeed,  when  used  figuratively,  de- 
notes idolatry,  but  the  context  manifestly  shews  that  it  is  the  pro- 
per, not  the  figurative  sense  that  is  here  to  be  regarded.  Though 
Tt^vetci  may  not  be  common  in  classical  Gr.  its  meaning  is  so  well 
ascertained  by  its  frequent  recurrence  both  in  the  Septuagint  and 
in  the  N.  T.  that  in  my  opinion,  it  is  as  little  to  be  denominated 
ambiguous,  as  any  word  in  the  language. 

37.  But  let  your  yes  be  yes,  your  tio  no  ;  itm  Si  o  Aiye;  o,«,«v 
»«<  vxt,  a  a.  E.  T.  But  let  your  commu?ricalion  be  yea  yea,  nay 
nay.  I  take  this  and  the  three  preceding  verses  to  be  quoted 
James  v.  12.  I  suppose  from  memory,  as  conveying  the  sense, 
though  with  some  difference  of  expression,  /tcjj  ofcwere  itojTf  tov  a^a. 

»ev,  (MjTi  ryiv  yry,  fi.^Te  xXXot  Tiix.  'op>c»¥'  »itm  ai-uu-aiv  To  vxi,  vxi,  khi  ro  a, 

n.  It  is  but  just  that  we  avail  ourselves  of  this  passage  of  the  dis- 
ciple, to  assist  us  in  explaining  the  words  of  his  Master.  It  was 
a  proverbial  manner  among  the  Jews  (see  Wet.)  of  characterising 
a  man  of  strict  probity  and  good  faith,  by  saying,  Kxs  yes  is  yes, 
and  his  no  is  no  ;  that  is,  you  may  depend  upon  his  word,  as  he 


52  NOTES  ON  cH.  V, 

declares,  so  it  is,  and  as  he  promises,  so  he  will  do.  Our  Lord 
is,  therefore,  to  be  considered  here,  not  as  prescribing  the  precise 
terms  wherein  we  are  to  affirm  or  deny,  in  which  case  it  would 
have  suited  better  the  simplicity  of  his  style,  to  say  barely  vix<  xxt 
a,  without  doubling  the  words;  but  as  enjoining  such  an  habitu- 
al and  inflexible  regard  to  truth,  as  would  render  swearing  un- 
necessary. That  this  manner  of  converting  these  adverbs  into 
nouns,  is  in  the  idiom  of  the  sacred  penmen,  we  have  another  in- 
stance, 2  Cor.  i.  20.  For  all  the  promises  of  God  in  him  are  yea, 
and  in  him  amen  ;  iv  ccvrw  ro  va/,  Kxt  tv  uvra  to  ccf^tjv'  that  is,  certain 
and  infallible  truths.  It  is  indeed  a  common  idiom  of  the  Gr. 
»  tongue,  to  turn,  by  means  of  the  article,  any  of  the  parts  of  speech 
into  a  noun.  And,  though  there  is  no  article  in  the  passage  un- 
der review,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked  that  Chr.  in  his  commen- 
taries, writes  it  with  the  article,  to  vxi,  vxr  km  to  y,  a'  as  in  the 
passage  of  James  above  quoted.  Either  he  must  have  read  thus 
in  the  copies  then  extant,  or  he  must  have  thought  the  expression 
elliptical,  and  in  this  way  supplied  the  ellipsis.  Whichsoever 
of  these  be  true,  it  shows  that  he  understood  the  words  in  the 
manner  above  explained.  Indeed  they  appear  to  have  been  al- 
ways so  understood  by  the  Gr.  Fathers.  Justin  Martyr,  in  the 
second  century,  quotes  the  precept  in  the  same  manner,  in  his 
second  apology,  t?a^i  ItLuv  to  veti^  veer  «,xt  to  «,  «.  And  to  shew 
*  that  he  had  the  same  meaning,  he  introduces  it  with  signifying, 
that  Christ  gave  this  injunction  to  the  end  that  we  might  never 
swear,  but  always  speak  truth,  f^?ioiu.vveiv  oAw?,  r'  uM^tj  ^e  Xtynv  un. 
Now,  in  the  way  it  is  commonly  interpreted,  it  has  no  relation  to 
the  speaking  of  truth ;  whereas  the  above  explanation  gives  a 
more  emphatical  import  to  the  sentence.  Thus  understood,  it  en- 
joins the  rigid  obiiervance  of  truth  as  the  sure  method  of  supersed- 
ing oaths,  which  are  never  used,  in  our  mutual  communications, 
without  betraying  a  consciousness  of  some  latent  evil,  a  defect 
in  veracity  as  well  as  in  piety.  In  like  manner  Clemens  Alexan, 
drinus,  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  Stromata,  lib.  v. 
quotes  these  words  as  our  Lord's  :  {jiA.m  tovxi,  vxf  x-xi  to  »,  a.  The 
same  also  is  done  by  Epiphanius  in  the  fourth  century,  lib.  i.  con- 
tra Ossenos.  Philo's  sentiment  on  this  subject  (in  his  book  Ilf^* 
Tm  ^sKce,  Xoytm')  is  both  excellent  in  itself,  and  here  very  apposite. 
It  is  to  this  effect,  that  we  ought  never  to  swear,  but  to  be  so  uni, 
formly  observant  of  truth  in  our  conversation,  that  our  word  may 
always  be  regarded  as  an  oath.   K«AA<fov,  KMfiiM0eMTU,ToVyX.xtet,o^ 


CH.  V.  S,  MATTHEW.  53 

fMTTov  MytM.71  (pvcrii^  TO  avufMTev,  VTUi  xMSsvUv  i<p'  iKxra  aeaiaxyf^sv)^, 

^  Proceedeihfrotn  evil,  ix  m  Trovupn  £<riv.  Some  render  it  cow. 
eth  from  the  evil  one,  supposing  m  7rov},pev  to  be  the  genitive 
of  0  TTovtipei,  the  evil  one,  that  is,  the  devil.  But  it  is  at  least  as 
probably  the  genitive  of  to  5rev«/iav,  evil  in  the  abstract,  or  what- 
ever this  epithet  may  be  justly  applied  to.  The  same  doubt  has 
been  raised  in  regard  to  that  petition,  in  the  Lord's  prayer,  De. 
liver  us  from  evil,  oiTro  m  Trovtipa,  or  from  the  evil  one.  I  consi- 
der it  as  a  maxim  in  translating,  that  when  a  word  is,  in  all  re- 
spects, equally  susceptible  of  two  interpretations,  one  of  which, 
as  a  genus,  comprehends  the  other,  always  to  prefer  the  more  ex- 
tensive. The  evil  one  is  comprehended  under  the  general  term 
evil.  But  in  the  phrase  the  evil  one,  the  pravity  of  a  man's  own 
heart,  or  any  kind  of  evil,  Satan  alone  excepted,  is  not  included. 
If  we  fail  in  the  former  way,  the  author's  sense  is  still  given, 
though  less  definitely.  If  we  err  in  the  other  way,  the  author's 
sense  is  not  given,  but  a  different  sense  of  our  own.  It  has  been 
affirmed  that  this  adjective  with  the  article  ought  always  to  be 
rendered  the  evil  one  ;  but  it  is  afhrmed  without  foundation. 
To  etyecB-ov  denotes  good  in  the  abstract,  and  to  Trovupov  evil.  L.  \i. 
45.     See  also  Rom.  xii.  9.     Nor  are  these  the  only  places. 

39.  Resist  not  the  injurious,  (w.!?  uvTtc-yivcci  tu  Tonipa.  E.  T.  Kc 
sist  not  evil.  It  is  plain  here  fi-om  Avhat  follows  that  tu  %-ovtipw 
is  the  dative  of  o  -Tirari^po^,  not  of  to  Tronpov.  It  is  equally  plain  that 
by  0  TToviipoi  is  not  meant  here  the  devil ;  for  to  that  malignant 
spirit  we  do  not  find  imputed  in  Scripture  such  injuries  as  smit- 
ing a  man  on  the  cheek,  taking  away  his  coat,  or  compelling  him 
to  attend  hira  on  a  journey. 

40.  Coat,  ^^tronx — mantle,  tu^ccTtov.    Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  1,  2. 

42.  Him  that  would  borrozo  from  thee  put  not  away,  tov  &tXov- 
Td  uTTo  a-H  ^MiiTxirB-cn  n*i  »7roi-p»!p>ii.  E.  T.  From  him  that  zcould 
borrozo  of  thee  turn  not  thou  awaj/.  Of  these  two  the  former 
version  is  the  closer,  but  there  is  little  or  no  difference  in  the 
meaning.  Either  way  rendered,  the  import  is.  Do  not  reject  his 
suit. 

44.  Bless  them  who  curse  you.  This  clause  is  wanting  in  the 
Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions,  and  in  three  MSS.  of  small  account. 

\'0L.   IV,  T 


J4  NOTES  ON 


CH.  T. 


^  Arraign^  tTntpex^ovTm.  E.  T.  Despitefully  use,  Vul.  Co- 
lumniantibus.  This  suits  better  the  sense  of  the  word  1  Pet. 
iii.  16.  the  only  other  place  in  Scripture  (the  parallel  passage  in 
L.  excepted)  where  it  occurs,  o  cTtipeu^ovreg  v/mov  t^jv  ccyuSiiv  «v  Xpu 
?-u  «vx?-po'p)jy^  which  our  translators  render,  who  falsely  accuse 
your  good  conversation  in  Christ.  Eisner  justly  observes,  that 
the  word  has  frequently  a  forensic  signification,  for  bringing  a 
criminal  charge  against  one.  Its  being  followed  by  the  verb  ^«- 
UKM  makes  it  probable  that  it  is  used  in  that  sense  here.  I  have 
translated  it  arraign^  because  it  suits  the  meaning  of  the  word 
in  the  above  quotation,  and  is  equally  adapted  to  the  original  in 
the  juridical  and  in  the  common  acceptation. 

45.  That  ye  may  be  children  of  your  Father  in  heaven;  that 
is,  that  ye  may  shew  yourselves  by  a  conformity  of  disposition 
to  be  his  children. 

^  Maketh  his  sun  arise  on  bad  and  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on 
just  and  unjust,  rov  ij^iov  uvra  avxreXXet  eTtt  Trowipni  noit  ayetSm,  kcU 
^pez^i  crt  ^ix-ctini;  x,cci  ec^t>cni.  E.  T.  Malceth  his  sun  to  rise  on  the 
evil  a7id  on  the  good,  and  sejideth  rain  on  the  just  and  on  the 
unjust.  An  indiscriminate  distribution  of  favours  to  men  of  the 
most  opposite  characters  is  much  better  expressed,  in  the  origi- 
nal, without  the  discriminative  article,  and  without  even  repeat- 
ing the  preposition  unnecessarily,  than  it  is  in  our  common  ver- 
sion, where  the  distinction  is  marked  by  both  with  so  much  for- 
mality. Another  example  of  this  sort  we  have  ch.  xxii.  10.  I 
am  surprised  that  Sc.  who,  in  general,  more  in  the  taste  of  the 
synagogue  than  of  the  church,  is  superstitiously  literal,  has,  both 
here  and  elsewhere,  paid  so  little  regard  to  what  concerns  the 
article. 

46.  The  publicans,  hi  rtXmxi,  The  toll  gatherers,  a  class  of 
people  much  hated,  not  only  from  motives  of  interest,  but  from 
their  being  considered  as  tools  employed  by  strangers  and  idola- 
ters for  enslaving  their  country.  Besides,  as  they  farmed  the 
taxes,  their  very  business  laid  them  under  strong  temptations  to 
oppress.  Johnson  observes  that  jmblican,  in  low  language, 
means  a  man  that  keeps  a  house  of  general  entertainment.  This 
is  a  manifest  corruption.  The  word  has  never  this  meaning  in 
the  gospel :  neither  is  this  ever  the  meaning  of  the  Latin  etymon. 


CH.  VI.  -  S.  MATTHEW.  5* 

47.  Your  friends.  E.  T.  Your  brethren.  The  reading  of 
most  MSS.  and  some  of  the  oldest  is  rm  (ptXavg  vf^Mv.  Of  ancient 
versions  also,  the  second  Sy.  and  the  Go.  have  read  thus.  It  is 
the  reading  of  the  edition  of  Alcala,  and  is  favoured  by  Wet. 
and  other  critics.  The  sense,  however,  it  must  be  owned,  is 
little  affected  by  the  difference. 

^  Wherein  do  ye  excel?  rt  Treptc-e-av  tfohits.  E.  T.  IVhatdoye 
more  than  others?  Our  Lord  had  declared,  v.  20.  Unless  your 
righteousness  excel,  euv  (mj  -Trepny-s-siis-i],  the  righteousness  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  never  enter  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven. Now  to  that  declaration  there  appears,  in  the  question  n 
TriptTTov  TToinTs,  3.  mauifcst  reference,  which,  in  the  common  ver- 
sion, disappears  entirely.  I  have  endeavoured  to  preserve  it,  by 
imitating  the  original,  in  recurring  to  the  term  formerly  used. 
Our  Lord's  expostulation  is  rendered  more  energet-ical  by  the 
contrast.     'If  ye  do  good  to  your  friends  only,  your  righteous- 

*  ness,  which,  I  told  you,  must  excel  that  of  the  Scribes  and 

*  Pharisees,  will  not  excel  even  that  of  the  Publicans  and  Pagans.* 

^  The  Pagans.  The  reading  is  it  thiKoi  in  the  Cam.  and  seve- 
ral other  MSS.  It  is  supported  by  a  number  of  ancient  versions, 
the  Vul.  Cop.  second  Sy.  Eth.  Ara.  Sax.  It  was  so  read  by  Chr. 
and  several  of  the  Fathers.  It  is,  besides,  much  in  our  Lord's 
manner,  not  to  recur  to  the  same  denomination  of  persons,  bu^ 
to  others  in  similar  circumstances.  Publicans,  when  exhibited, 
in  the  Gospel,  as  of  an  opprobrious  character,  are  commonly 
classed  with  sinners,  with  harlots,  or,  as  in  this  place,  with  hea- 
thens. The  Go.  has  both  words,  but  in  a  different  order,  Pagang 
in  the  46th  verse,  and  Pubjicans  in  the  47th. 

CHAP.  VI, 

1 .  That  ye  perform  not  your  religious  duties,  tjj»  £Af!?^o"K»)ji» 
ii/ttA/v  iMj  Tronic.  E.  T.  That  ye  do  not  your  alms.  Some  MSS.  have 
SiKxioFvtTfiv  instead  of  tAfjjiicas-tinjv.  The  Vul.  has  Justitiam  vestram. 
The  Sy.  and  Sax.  are  to  the  same  purpose.  Some  of  the  Fathers 
read  so.  I  do  not  take  ^ix.ccioa-v*}]  (which  is  probably  the  genuine 
reading)  to  be  used  here  for  iXv/ifMU'vvyi,  and  to  mean  alms,  as  men- 
tioned in  the  next  verse  ;  but  I  conceive  with  Dod.  this  verse  to  be 
a  common  introduction  to  the  three  succeeding  paragraphs,  in 


56  NOTES  ON 


en.  VI 


relation  lo  alms,  prayer,  and  fasting.  This  removes  Wh.'s  and 
Wet.'s  principal  objection  to  this  reading,  namely,  that  it  is  not 
likely  the  Evangelist  would,  in  the  following  words,  when  nam- 
ing alms,  have  thrice  called  them  fPifsj^oc-i/vsj,  after  introducing  the 
mention  of  them  by  another  name.  As  to  Wet/s  objection  to 
the  hypothesis  here  adopted,  that  he  does  not  find  prayer  and 
fasting  ever  called  ^ikmoo-wvi^  it  is  well  answered  by  Bishop  Pearce, 
that  in  our  Lord's  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  pro- 
pounded on  purpose  to  rebuke  the  conceit  which  the  Pharisees 
had  of  their  own  righteousness,  mention  is  made  of  fasting  and 
paying  tithes,  as  coming  under  this  denomination.  Further,  in 
ch.  iii.  15.  John's  baptism,  an  ordinance  in  itsrff  of  a  positive, 
not  moral,  nature,  was  comprehended  under  the  same  term. 
However,  as  the  authorities  for  this  departure  from  tlie  common 
reading  are  not  so  numerous  as  those  by  Avhich,  on  most  other 
occasions,  I  have  been  determined,  it  is  proper  to  give  the  reasons 
which  have  inclined  me  to  adopt  this  correction.  It  appears  to 
be  quite  in  our  Lord's  manner  to  introduce  instructions  regard- 
ing particular  duties  by  some  general  sentiment  or  admonition, 
which  is  illustrated  or  exemplified  in  them  all.  In  the  preceding 
chapter,  after  the  general  warning,  t.  20.  Unless  your  righteous- 
ness  excel,  &c.  there  follows  an  illustration  of  the  sentiment,  iu 
regard,  ist,  to  murder,  next  to  adultery  and  divorce,  3dly,  to 
swearing,  and,  4thly,  to  retaliation  and  the  love  of  our  neigh- 
bour ;  the  scope  of  every  one  of  these  being  to  enforce  the  doc- 
trine with  which  he  had  prefaced  those  lessons.  As,  in  the  for- 
mer chapter,  he  showed  the  extent  of  the  divine  law  ;  in  this,  he 
shows  that  the  virtue  of  the  best  performances  may  be  annihilat- 
ed by  a  vicious  motive,  such  as  vain  glory.  His  general  admoni. 
tion  on  this  head  is  illustrated  in  these  particulars,  alms,  prayer, 
and  fasting.  Add  to  this,  that  if  we  retain  the  common  reading, 
there  is  in  v.  2.  a  tautology  which  is  not  in  our  Lord's  manner. 
But  if  the  first  verse  be  understood  as  a  general  precept  against 
ostentation  in  religion,  the  abstaining  from  the  common  methods 
of  gratifying  this  humour,  in  the  performance  of  a  particular  du- 
ty, is  very  suitably  subjoined  as  a  consequence. 

2.  They  have  received  their  regard,  xttixho-i  tov  f^is-Bov  uvrm  ; 
that  is,  they  have  received  that  applause  which  they  seek,  and 
work  for.  Kjiatchbul  and  others  think  that  the  word  ».vexoj  her? 


c„.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  57 

means  hinder  or  prevent.  On  this  supposition  the  words  may- 
be rendered,  They  preclude  their  reward,  to  wit,  the  reward  of 
virtue  in  heaven.  But  I  do  not  find  that  in  any  other  passage  of 
the  N.  T.  where  the  word  occurs,  this  sense  can  properly  be  ad- 
mitted. Wherever,  in  the  Septuagint,  the  verb  is  used  actively, 
the  meaning  is  not  io  hinder,  but  to  obtain.  Were,  therefore, 
the  only  classical  authority  that  has  been  produced  on  the  other 
side,  as  clear  as  it  is  doubtful,  the  ordinary  version  of  the  word, 
which  is  also  that  of  the  Vul.  and  Sy.  and  other  ancient  transla. 
tjons,  is  here,  by  all  the  rules  of  interpretation,  entitled  to  the 
preference. 

4.  Recompense  thee.  In  the  common  Gr.  copies,  after  otTrah. 
rci  c-ot,  we  read  £v  't«  (pxtifw  ;  which  our  translators  render  open- 
ly. But  these  words  are  not  found  in  some  ancient  and  valua- 
ble MSS.  were  not  received  by  several  of  the  most  eminent  Fa- 
thers, nor  have  been  adm.itted  into  the  Vul.  the  Sax.  or  the  Cop. 
versions.  Wet.  thinks  that  both  Jerom  and  Augustine  have  been 
led  to  reject  this  expression,  by  an  excessive  deference  to  the 
opinion  of  Origen,  who  did  not  think  it  probable  that  our  Lord, 
in  dissuading  his  disciples  from  paying  a  regard  to  the  judgment 
of  men,  would  have  introduced,  as  an  incitement,  that  the  reward 
should  be  in  public,  a  circumstance  which  brought  them  back, 
as  it  Avere  by  another  road,  to  have  still  a  regard  to  the  esteem 
©f  men.  But  from  the  words  which  Wet.  quotes  from  Augus- 
tine, that  appears  not  to  have  been  this  Father's  reason  for  re- 
jecting those  words.  His  declared  reason  was,  because  the  ex- 
pression was  not  found  in  the  Gr.  MSS.  That  by  Gr.  MSS.  he 
meant  Jerom's  La.  version,  is  presumed  by  Wet.  without  evi- 
dence, and  against  probability.  The  same  appears  to  have  been 
Origen's  reason  for  rejecting  the  words;  though  he  justly  consi- 
dered their  containing  something  repugnant  to  the  scope  of  the 
argument,  as  adding  credibility  to  his  verdict.  And  even  this 
additional  reason  of  Origen's  is,  by  the  way,  more  feebly  an- 
swered by  Wet.  than  might  have  been  expected  :  Debebut.,  says 
he,  speaking  of  Origen,  distinguere  gloriam  quce  a  Deo  est,  et 
glorium  qu(e  est  ab  hominibus.  Illi  studendum  est.,  nan  huic. 
But  did  not  Wet.  advert,  that  in  the  promise,  God  shall  regard 
thee  openly,  both  are  contained,  honour  from  God  the  rewarder, 
and  honour  from  men  the  spectators,  the  most  incredulous  of 
whom  must  be  convinced,  by  so  glorious  an  award  of  the  infalli- 


5«  NOTES  ON 


CH.  VI. 


ble  judge  ?  Now,  if  the  first  ought  alone  to  be  regarded,  of  what 
significance  is  it  whether  the  reward,  which  God  gives,  shall  be 
public  or  private  ?  Er.  and  Ben.  therefore,  acted,  not  without 
reason,  in  rejecting  these  words.  It  appears  to  me  most  proba- 
ble, that  some  transcriber,  thinking  it  certain  that  the  recom. 
pense  here  meant  is  that  which  will  be  given  at  the  general  judg- 
ment, and  perceiving  that  tv  ru  ^pavepa  made  a  good  antithesis  to 
ev  ru  Kfiwro)^  in  the  preceding  clause,  has  added  it  by  way  of  gloss 
on  the  margin,  whence  it  has  been  brought  into  the  text.  This 
is  probably  the  origin  of  some  other  interpolations.  This  remark 
should  be  extended  to  verses  6th  and  18th.  In  regard  to  the  last 
mentioned,  the  number  of  MSS,  as  well  as  of  ancient  versions 
which  omit  the  a  tu  (pxti^u^  are  so  many,  that  Wet.  himself  has 
thought  fit  to  reject  it. 

7.  Talk  not  idly  f^*i  ^ctrroMyiio-yire.  E.  T.  Use  not  vain  re- 
petitions.  This  interpretation  is  rather  too  confined.  Vain 
repetitions  are  doubtless  included  in  the  prohibition.  But  they 
are  not  all  that  is  here  prohibited.  Every  thing  that  may  justly 
be  called  words  spoken  at  random^  vain^  idle^  or  foolish^  may 
be  considered  as  comprehended  under  the  term  fixrroXoyeiv.  The 
word  TfoXvXoynit^  applied  to  the  same  fault  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse,  is  a  further  evidence  of  this. 

10.  Thy  reign  come.     Diss.  V.  P.  I. 

11.  Our  daily  bread,  tov  ccprov  t^iamv  rev  tTrtHTtov.  Vul.  Panent 
nostrum  su/iersubstantialem.  lihe.  Our  supersubstantial  bread. 
The  same  word,  £ar/«(r<ov,  is,  however,  in  the  parallel  place  in 
L.  rendered  in  the  Vulg.  quotidianum.  In  this  way  it  had  been 
translated  in  both  places  in  the  Itc.  with  which  agrees  the  Sax. 
version  :  »'  sTrma-x,  viz.  ^u.e^et,  means  literally  the  coming  day, 
a  phrase  which,  in  the  morning,  may  have  been  used  for  the  day 
already  commenced,  and  in  the  evening,  for  to-morroio.  There 
is  probably  an  allusion  here  to  the  provision  of  manna  made  for 
(he  Israelites  in  the  desert,  which  was  from  day  to  day.  Every 
day's  portion  was  gathered  in  the  morning,  except  the  seventh 
day's.  But  in  order  to  prevent  the  breach  of  the  Sabbath,  they 
received  a  double  portion  on  the  sixth  day.  That  food,  there- 
fore, may  literally  be  termed  o  ot,^r(^  avrm  o  evmnoi.  This  suits, 
in  sense,  the  Sy.  "inm  demahar,  the  word,  according  to  Jerom, 
iised  in  the  Nazarean  Gospel,   which  is  accountedj  by  critics  of 


CH.  VI.  S.MATTHEW.  £9 

great  name,  a  genuine  though  not  faultless  copy  of  Mt.'s  origi- 
nal.    See  the  Preface,  §  13.     In  the  M.  G.  version  it  is  kci.%j^. 

12.  Our  debts,  t«  6<?Bi>.nii*xrot  tSfMiv.  That  sins  are  meant,  or  of- 
fences ngainst  God,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  At  first,  therefore, 
for  perspicuity's  sake,  I  rendered  the  verse  thus  :  Forgive  us  our 
offences,  as  zee  forgive  them  who  offend  us.  But  reflecting  that 
the  metaphor  is  plain  in  itself,  and  rendered  familiar  by  scriptural 
use;  reflecting  also,  that  the  remission  of  real  debts,  in  many 
cases,  as  well  as  injuries,  is  a  duty  clearly  deducible  from  our 
Lord's  instructions,  and  may  be  intentionally  included  in  the 
clause  subjoined  to  the  petition,  I  thought  it  better  to  retain  the 
general  terms  of  the  common  version. 

13.  Abandon  us  not  to  temptation,  /^^  etc-cviyxTfi  ^j^*?  si<;  tsi^xs-- 
,tt.ov.  E.  T.  Lead  us  not  into  temptation.  The  verb  sia-ipepeiv^  in  the 
Sept.  is  almost  always  used  to  express  the  Heb.  verb  nu  to  go, 
in  the  conjugation  /ii/j/j//,  which,  agreeably  to  the  usual  power 
of  that  conjugation,  denotes,  to  cause  to  go,  to  bring,  to  lead. 
But  though  this  be  the  usual,  it  is  not  the  constant,  import  of 
that  form  of  the  verb.  The  hiphil,  sometimes,  instead  of  imply- 
ing to  cause  to  do,  denotes  no  more  than  to  permit,  not  to  hinder. 
Nor  need  we  be  surprised  at  this,  when  we  consider  that,  in  all 
known  languages,  petitions  and  commands,  things  the  most  con- 
trary in  nature,  are  expressed  by  the  same  mood,  the  imperative. 
The  words,  give  me,  may  either  mark  a  request  from  my  Maker 
or  an  order  to  my  servant.  Yet  so  much,  in  most  cases,  do  the 
attendant  circumstances  fix  the  sense,  that  little  inconvenience 
arises  from  this  latitude.  In  the  N.  T.  there  appear  several  ex- 
amples of  this  extent  of  meaning  in  verbs,  in  analogy  to  the  power 
of  that  conjugation.  Mr.  v.  12.  The  devils  besought  him,  saj/. 
ing.  Send  us,  Tref^Apoy  ^fcxg,  into  the  szoine.  Here  the  words,  send 
us,  mean  no  more  than  the  words,  suffer  us  to  go,  eTrerpBipov  >jf^iv 
a,7nX6nv,  do  in  Mt.  In  this  sense  the  word  is  used  also  in  other 
places,  as  when  God  is  said,  2  Thess.  ii.  11.  to  send  strong  delu- 
sions. Send  awaj/,  Gen.  xxiv.  34.  56.  59.  means  no  more  than 
let  go. 

^  Preserve  us  from  evil,  pve-xt  tift-et^  utto  m  Trevtipa.  E.  T, 
Deliver  lis  from  evil.  The  import  of  the  word  deliver  in 
such  an  application  as  this,  is  no  more  than  to  rescue  from  an  evil 
into  which  one  has  already  fallen  :  but  the  verb  ^vofAxt,  which  is 


60  NOTES  ON  cH.  vr. 

frequently  used  by  the  Seventy  for  a  Heb.  word  signifying  to 
save^  or  preserve,  denotes  here  as  evidently,  keep  us  from  fa]ling 
into  evil,  as,  deliver  us  from  the  evils  into  which  we  are  fallen. 
See  cv.  37.  2. 

^  'Ot/  tra  ef/v  Jj'  ^XTiXeict,  ycxi  «/  avvetfiii;,  x,m  V  oo^x  en  rag  ctiutcn. 
AjMjv.  E.  T.  For  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the  poieer,  and  the  glo. 
ry  for  ever.  Amen.  This  doxology  is  wanting,  not  only  in  several 
ancient  Gr.  MSS.  but  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Ara.  versions. 
It  wa?  not  in  the  Gr.  copies  used  by  Origen,  Gregory  Nyssen, 
or  Cyril.  Cesarius  quotes  it,  not  as  from  the  Scripture,  but  as 
from  the  liturgy  used  in  the  Gr.  churches,  whence,  in  all  human 
probability,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  most  celebrated 
critics,  it  has  first  been  taken.  I  shall  only  add  Wet.'s  remark: 
"  Si  hsc  ^o^oXtyia,  non  pars  est,  sed  appendix  vel  antiphona  ora- 
*'  tionis  dominicae,  cui  in  ecclesia  a  sacerdote  solo,  et  semper  addi 
"  solebat,  omnia  plana  sunt,  ct  facile  intelligimus,  cur  librarii 
*'  illam  Mattheo  adjecerint ;  sin  autem  ab  ipso  Domino  fuit  pra3- 
"  scripta,  qui  factum,  ut  ipso  verba  pra^eunte,  nee  omnes  disci- 
*'  puli,  nee  Lucas  Evangelista,  nee  Patres  Graeci,  nee  tota  ecclesia 
"  Latina  sequerentur  ?  Porro  si  quis  rem  ipsam  pro  pius  consi. 
"  deraverit,  deprehendet,  utique  (J^oloAey^sev  loco  minus  commodo 
'*  hie  inseri :  apparet  enim  turn  comma  14.  hoc  modo  nimis  longe 
"  removeri  a  prascedente  commate  12.  cujus  tamen  explicandi 
"  gratia,  adjectum  est,"  &c. 

18.  To  thy  Father  ;  and  thy  Father  to  whom,  though  he  is  un. 
seen  himself,  nothing  is  secret,  ru  Trarpi  a-a,  ru  tv  rw  y.pv7rra>'  y.M  o 
TTXTiip  a-a  0  ^XiTTuv  iv  rw  y.pvTrru.  E.  T.  Unto  thy  Father  which  is 
in  secret ;  and  thy  Father  zchich  seeth  in  secret.  It  must  be  ac- 
knowledged that  the  expression,  which  is  in  secret,  is  rather  dark 
and  indefinite.  If  understood  as  denoting  that  every  the  most 
secret  thing  is  known  to  God,  the  latter  clause,  which  seeth  in 
secret,  is  a  mere  tautology  :  but  this  cannot  be  admitted  to  have 
been  the  intention  of  the  sacred  writer  ;  for  the  manner  in  Avhich 
the  clause  is  introduced,  shows  evidently,  that  something  further 
was  intended  by  it  than  to  repeat  in  other  words  what  had  been 
said  immediately  before.  On  v.  6.  there  is  indeed  a  different  read- 
ing, two  MSS.  want  the  article  ra  after  Trxrpt  c-s,  which  makes  the 
secresy  refer  to  the  act  of  praying,  not  to  the  Father  prayed  to. 
In  support  of  this  reading,  the  Vul.  and  Ara.  versions  are  also 
pleaded.  But  this  authority  is  far  too  inconsiderable  to  warrant 
a  change,  not  absolutely  necessary,  in  point  of  meaning,  or  of 


CH.  vr.  S.  MATTHEW.  6t 

construction.  Besides,  there  is  no  variation  of  reading  on  this 
18th  verse,  either  in  versions  or  in  MSS.  Now  the  two  passa- 
ges are  so  perfectly  parallel  in  their  aim,  and  similar  in  their 
structure,  that  there  is  no  ground  to  suppose  a  change  in  the 
one,  -which  does  not  take  place  in  the  other.  The  unanimity, 
therefore,  of  the  witnesses,  that  is,  of  the  MSS.  editions,  and 
versions,  which  support  the  reading  of  v.  18th,  is  a  strong  con- 
firmation of  the  common  roading  of  v.  6th.  But  what  then  is 
to  be  understood  by  o  ev  tu  y.^vtctuI  I  answer,  with  Gro.  Wh. 
and  others,  that  o  ev  ru  >cpv7rru  is  here  a  periphrasis  for  o  KovTrray^- 
v®-,  and  signifies  hidden^  unperce/vcd,  unseen.  The  sentiment 
resembles  that  of  the  poet  Philemon, 

'O  TToivB''  opav  re  x.  ccvr(^  a^'  opuf^iv'^  ; 

zcho  sees  all  things^  and  is  unseen  himself ;  or  of  the  more  an. 
cient  poet  Orpheus,  as  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Ad- 
mo  nit.  ad  Genles.) 

a^e  Tig  tuvrov 
EiTopcc  5-Vi)Tu\i'  ecvT(^  ^eys  Trxvrxi  opxrui. 

To  this  purpose  the  words  are  rendered  by  Cas.  Pafri  tuo  qui 
sccultus  est,  et  pater  tuns  qui  occulta  cernit.  Si.  has  understood 
this  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Vul.  which  says.  Qui  est  in  abscon.. 
dito,  as  he  translates  it  in  this  manner,  Votre  pere  qui  ne  paroit 
point  ;  et  votre  pere  qui  voit  ce  qu''il  y  a  de  plus  cache. 

19.  Treasure.,  BiiFctvpa?.  I  have  here  retained  the  word  trea- 
siire.)  though  not  perfectly  corresponding  to  the  Gr.  .%7xvpo<;. 
With  us,  nothing  is  treasure  but  the  precious  metals.  Here  it 
denotes  stores  of  all  kinds.  That  garments  were  specially  in- 
tended, the  mention  of  moths  plainly  shows.  It  was  customary 
for  the  opulent  in  Asiatic  countries,  where  their  fashions  in  dress 
were  not  fluctuating  like  ours,  to  have  repositories  full  of  rich 
and  splendid  apparel.  However,  as  the  sense  here  could  not  be 
mistaken,  I  thought  energy  of  expression  was  to  be  preferred  to 
strict  propriety.  For  the  same  reason  I  have  retained  the  com- 
mon version  of  ^pua-n;  rust  (though  the  word  be  unusual  in  this 
meaning),  because  it  may  denote  any  thing  which  corrodes,  con- 
sumes, or  spoils  goods  of  any  kind.     Dod.  says  canker. 

VOL.  IV.  8 


62  NOTi:S  ON  CH.  vr. 

22.  Sound,  uTTXovi.  E.  T.  S/nglc.  Both  Chr.  and  The.  re- 
present the  Greek  word  as  synonymous  here  with  iyirji,  sanus. 

23.  Distempered,  ttovij^o^.  E.  T.  evil.  The.  votnu^tn.^  morbidtis. 
That  there  is  no  reference  to  the  primitive  meaning  of  a9rA«i>?, 
simple,  or  single,  is  evident  from  its  being  contrasted  to  Tnvijpoij 

and  not  to  ^iTsrXavi;. 

^  Hozc  great  zcill  the  darkness  be  ?  to  g-mtoi;  -tcotov.  E.  T.  How 
great  is  that  darkness ?  The  words  are  rendered  in  the  same  way 
in  all  the  Eng.  versions  I  have  seen,  except  those  made  from  the 
Vul.  which  says,  Ipsa'  tenebrw  quanta^  erunt?  From  this  the 
other  La.  translations  do  not  materially  differ  ;  nor  the  Itn.  ot 
Dio.  Quaiite  saranno  le  tenebre  ?  nor  the  Fr.  of  P.  R.  Si.  Sa. 
Beau,  or  L.  CI.  who  concur  in  rendering  it,  Combien  seront 
grandes  les  tenebres  memes  ?  nor  the  Ger.  of  Lu.  who  says, 
ftitc  groiSie  toirti  aennBtc  ftttistcrntsdef  gellier  jscnn?  The  only  foreign 
versions  1  have  seen,  w  hich  translate  this  passage  in  the  same  man- 
ner with  the  Eng.  are  the  G.  F.  Combien  grandes  seront  icelles 
tenebres  la  ?  and  the  Itn.  and  Fr.  versions  of  Giovan  Luigi  Pas- 
chale.  In  the  former  of  them  it  is,  Esse  tenebre  quanto  saranno 
grandi?  in  the  latter,  Combien  grandes  seront  icelles  tenebres? 
Let  it  be  observed,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  original  answer, 
ing  to  the  pronoun  that,  which  in  this  place  mars  the  sense,  in- 
stead of  illustrating  it.  The  concluding  word  darkness,  it  makes 
refer  to  the  eye,  whereas  it  certainly  refers  to  the  body,  or  all 
the  other  members  as  contradistinguished  to  the  eye.  Those  who 
explain  it  of  the  eye,  represent  our  Saviour  as  saying,  IJ  thine 
eye  be  dark,  how  dark  is  thine  eye  ?  the  meaning  of  which  I 
have  no  conception  of.  In  my  apprehension,  our  Lord's  argu- 
ment stands  thus :  '  The  eye  is  the  lamp  of  the  body  ;  from  it 
'  all  the  other  members  derive  their  light.  Now  if  that  which  is 
'  the  light  of  the  body  be  darkened,  how  miserable  will  be  the 
'  state  of  the  body?  how  great  will  be  the  darkness  of  those 
'  members  which  have  no  light  of  their  own,  but  depend  entirely 
'  on  the  eye  ?'  And  to  show  that  this  applies  equally  in  the  figu- 
rative or  moral,  as  in  the  literal  sense  :  '  If  the  conscience,  that 
'  mental  light  which  God  has  given  to  man  for  regulating  his 
'  moral  conduct,  be  itself  vitiated;  what  will  be  the  state  of  the 
'  appetites  and  passions,  which  are  naturally  blind  and  precipi- 
'  tate  ?'  Or,  to  take  the  thing  in  another  view  :  '  You,  my  disci- 
'  pies,  I  have  called  the  light  of  the  world,  because  destined  for 


m.  VI. 


S.  MATTHEW.  63 


*  instrucfers  and  guides  to  the  rest  of  mankind  ;  but  if  ye  should 

*  come,  through  ignorance  and  absurd  prejudices,  to  mistake 

*  evil  for  good,  and  good  for  evil,  how  dark  and  wretched  will 
^  be  the  condition  of  those  who  depend  on  the  instructions  they 
'  receive  from  you,  for  their  guidance  and  direction  ?' 

24.  Mam?non,  that  is,  riches.  Mammon  is  a  Sy.  word,  which 
the  Evangelists  have  retained,  as  serving  betfer  to  convey  the 
energy  of  our  Lord's  expression.  Wealth  is  here  personified, 
and  represented  as  a  master  who  rivals  God  in  our  hearts.  The 
word  is  become  familiar  enough  to  our  ears  to  answer  the  same 
purpose. 

25.  Be  not  anxious,  ft??  f^ipif^vari.  E.  T.  T(fke  no  thought.  I 
do  not  think  there  is,  in  the  common  version,  a  more  palpable 
deviation  than  this  from  (lie  sense  of  the  original.  Paul  says, 
Eph.  v.  18.  u}i  f^e^vTKic-S-i  eivM,  Be  not  drunk  zoith  zcinc.  Should 
one  translate  this  precept  Drink  no  zt'ine.,  the  departure  from  the 
sense  of  the  author  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  neither  greater,  nor 
more  evident.  Ms,%  does  not  more  clearly  signify  excess  than 
f4.£^if4.vce,  does  ;  the  former  in  indulging  a  sensual  gratification,  the 
other  in  cherishing  an  inordinate  concern  about  the  things  of  this 
life.  Paul  has  suggested  the  boundaries,  in  his  admonition  to 
the  Phillppians,  iv.  6.  Be  careful  for  nothing.,  f^n^iv  f^ip'u.vcirej 
but  in  everij  thing  by  prayer  and  supplication.^  zcith  thanksgiv. 
ing,  let  your  requests  be  tnadc  knozivi  unto  God. 

Even  here  the  phrase  would  have  been  better  rendered,  Be 
anxious  about  nothing  ;  for  doubtless  we  ought  not  to  be  care- 
less about  whatever  is  worthy  to  be  the  subject  of  a  request  to 
God.  To  take  no  thought  about  what  concerns  our  ow  n  sup. 
port,  and  the  "support  of  those  who  depend  upon  us,  would  ine- 
vitably prove  the  source  of  that  improvidence  and  inaction,  which 
are  in  the  N.  T.  branded  as  criminal  in  a  very  high  degree.  See 
1  Tim.  v.  8.  2  Thess.  iii.  8.  There  is  not  an  apparent  only, 
but  a  real,  contradiction  in  the  Apostle's  sentiments  to  our 
Lord's  precepts,  as  they  appear  in  the  common  version,  but  not 
the  shadow  of  a  repugnancy  to  them,  as  expressed  by  the  Evan- 
gelist. To  be  without  anxiety,  is  most  commonly  the  attendant 
of  industry  in  our  vocation,  joined  with  an  habitual  trust  in  Pro- 
vidence, and  acquiescence  in  its  dispensations.  The  Vul.  renders 
the  words  very  properly,  Ne  soliciti  sitis,  and  in  this  is  fol- 
lowed by  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  He.  J'isc.  and  Cas.     Ar.  has  adopted  the 


64  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

barbarous  word  anxtenn'ni,  in  preference  to  the  classical  cogitetis 
(as  the  latter  does  not  reach  the  sense),  that  he  might  express  in 
one  word  in  his  version,  what  was  expressed  in  one  word  in  Gr. 
It  is  true,  that  in  v.  27.  the  Vul.  renders  the  word  jM,£p<^v»v,  cogi- 
tans.  B'jt  one  vho  considers  the  taste  in  which  the  greater  part 
of  that  version  is  composed,  can  be  at  no  loss  to  assign  the  rea- 
son of  his  changing  the  word.  The  translator,  though  not  so 
extravafjantly  attached  to  the  letter,  as  Arias  and  Pagnin,  yet 
was  attached  to  it,  even  to  excess  ;  and  having  no  participle  from 
the  same  root  with  soliciius^  to  answer  to  y^tpiu-vuv,  chose  rather 
to  change  the  word  for  a  weaker,  and  say  cogifans^  than  either 
to  alter  the  participial  form  of  the  expression,  or  to  adopt  a  bar- 
barous term.  The  latter  of  these  methods  was  afterwards  taken 
by  Ar.  who  said,  anxiatus ;  the  former,  which  was  the  better 
method,  by  the  rest.  Er.  Zu.  Pise,  and  Be.  say,  solicite  cogi. 
tando.  Qn\.  anrie  curando.  Cas.  sua  solicifudine.  No  foreign 
version  that  I  know,  ancient  or  modern,  agrees  with  the  Eng.  in 
this  particular.  As  to  the  latter  Eng.  translations,  suffice  it  to 
observe,  that  Wes.'s  alone  excepted,  there  is  none  of  those  I 
have  seen,  that  does  not  use  either  anxious  or  solicitous.  I  have 
preferred  the  former,  both  as  coming  nearer  the  sense  of  the  ori- 
ginal, and  as  being  in  more  familiar  use.  It  may  not  be  impro- 
per to  observe,  that  Wy.  has  employed  the  term  over. solicitous, 
which!  think  faulty  in  the  other  extreme.  'Solicitude,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  implies  excess,  and  consequently  some  degree  of  dis- 
trust in  Providence,  and  want  of  resignation.  To  say.  Be  not 
over. solicitous,  is  in  effect  to  say,  Ye  may  be  solicitous,  if  ye  do 
not  carry  your  solicitude  too  far;  a  speech  unbefitting  both  the 
speaker  and  the  occasion.  Dio.  a  very  good  translator,  is  per- 
haps reprehensible  for  the  same  error.  Non  siate  co?i  ansicta 
sollecite.  We  have,  however,  a  most  harmonious  suffrage  of 
translators,  ancient  and  modern,  against  our  common  version  iu 
this  instance.  Some  would  say,  that  even  Wes.  might  be  includ- 
ed, who  does  not  say,  Take  no  thought,  but.  Take  not  thought ; 
for  there  is  some  difference  between  these  expressions. 

-  What  ye  shall  cat,  or  zchat  ye  shall  drink,  n  ^xyTtre  km  n 
vri'/in.  The  words,  x.cci  n  Triy^rs,  are  wanting  in  two  MSS.  Like- 
wise the  Vul.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions,  have  not  this  clause.  But 
these  are  of  no  weight,  compared  with  the  evidence  on  the  other 
side.     It  adds  to  this  considerably,  that  when  our  Lord,  in  the 


CH.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  65 

conclusion  of  his  argument,  v.  31st,  expresses,  for  the  last  time, 
the  precept  he  had  been  enforcing,  both  clauses  are  found  in  all 
the  MSS.  and  versions. 

^  Or,  y.a,i.  This  is  one  example  in  which  the  conjunction  km 
is,  with  equal  propriety,  translated  into  Eng.  or.  When  the  sen- 
tence contains  a  prohibition  of  two  different  things,  it  often  hap- 
pens that  either  way  will  express  the  sense.  When  the  copula- 
tive, r/«f/,  is  used,  the  verb  is  understood  as  repeated.  Thus  : 
Be  not  anxious  what  ye  shall  eat :  and  be  not  anxious  what  ye 
shall  drink.  When  the  disjunctive,  or.^  is  used,  it  expresses  with 
us  rather  more  strongly,  that  the  whole  force  of  the  prohibition 
equally  affects  each  of  the  things  mentioned  ;  as,  Be  not  anxious 
either  what  ye  shall  eat,  or  zdiat  ye  shall  drink.  In  the  con. 
junction,  and.,  in  such  cases,  there  is  sometimes  a  slight  ambigu- 
ity. Both  the  things  mentioned  may  be  prohibited,  taken  jointly, 
when  it  is  not  meant  to  prohibit  them  severally.  Another  in- 
stance of  this  kind,  not  perfectly  similar,  the  critical  reader  will 
find,  ch.  vii.  6. 

I  shall  here  observe,  by  the  way,  that  there  are  two  extremes, 
to  one  or  other  of  which  most  interpreters  lean,  in  translating^ 
the  instructions  given  by  our  Lord.  Some  endeavour  to  soften 
what  to  their  taste  is  harsh  ;  and  seem  afraid  of  speaking  out  to 
the  world,  what  the  sacred  historian  has  authorized  them  to  say. 
Others,  on  the  contrary,  imagining  that  moral  precepts  cannot 
be  too  rigorous,  give  generally  the  severest  and  most  unnatural 
interpretation  to  every  word  that  can  admit  more  than  one,  and 
sometimes  even  affix  a  moaning  (whereof  i^eptfAjix  is  an  instance) 
for  which  they  have  no  authority,  sacred  or  profane.  There  is 
a  danger  on  each  side,  against  which  a  faithful  interpreter  ought 
to  be  equally  guarded.  Our  Lord's  precepts  are  in  the  Orien- 
tal manner,  concisely  and  proverbially  expressed ;  and  we  ac- 
knowledge, that  all  of  them  are  not  to  be  expounded  by  the  mo- 
ralist, strictly  according  to  the  letter.  But,  whatever  allowance 
may  be  made  to  the  expositor  or  commentator,  this  is  what  the 
translator  has  no  title  to  expect.  The  character  just  now  given 
of  our  Lord's  precepts,  is  their  character  in  the  original,  as  they 
were  written  by  the  inspired  penmen  for  their  contemporaries; 
it  is  the  translator's  business  to  give  them  to  his  readers,  as  much 
as  possible,  stamped  with  the  same  signature  with  which  they 
were  given  by  the  Evangelists  to  theirs.     Those  methods,  there. 


66  NOTES  ON  cii.  vi.- 

fore,  of  enervating  the  expression,  to  render  the  doctrine  more 
palatable  to  us  moderns,  and  better  suited  to  the  reigning  senti- 
ments and  manners,  are  not  to  be  approved.  I  have  given  an 
instance  of  this  fault  in  Wy.  and  Dio.  I  shall  add  another  from 
the  pious  Dod.  v.  39.  TLyu  ^e  Xeyai  Cf^iv^  ftjj  civTti-y)va.t  tm  ttov^j^w,  he 
renders  thus:  But  I  say  unto  you  ^  that  ii  on  do  not  set  yourselves 
against  the  wjurioiis  person.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  Wor. 
and  Wa.  The  phrase,  do  not  set  yourself  against  a  man,  if  it 
mean  any  thiui^,  means,  do  not  become  his  enemy,  or  do  not  act 
the  part  of  an  enemy;  a  sense  neither  suited  to  the  words,  nor 
to  the  context.  To  pretend  to  support  it  from  etymology,  is  no 
better  than  it  would  be  to  contend  that  intelligo  should  be  trans- 
lated, /rcftt/  betioecn,  and  manu^nitto,  I  send  zoith  the  hand  ; 
or  (to  recur  to  our  ow^n  language,  which  answers  equally  well) 
to  explain  lunderstand,  as  denoting  1  stand  under,  or  /  reflect, 
as  implying  /  bend  back.  The  attempt  was  the  more  futile  here, 
as  every  one  of  the  three  following  examples,  whereby  our  Lord 
illustrated  his  precept,  sufficiently  shows  that  the  meaning  of  «v- 
T!?-i:voci  (had  the  word  been  equivocal,  as  it  is  not)  could  be  no- 
thing else  than  as  it  is  commonly  rendered,  resist,  or  oppose. 
The  anonymous  translator  1729,  seems  likewise  to  have  disre- 
lished this  precept,  rendering  it,  Don't  return  evil  for  evil;  a 
Christian  precept  doubtless,  but  not  the  precept  of  the  text.  Our 
Lord  says  expressly,  and  the  whole  context  vouches  his  meaning. 
Do  not  resist ;  his  translator  will  have  him  to  say.  Do  not  re. 
sent.  Jesus  manifestly  warns  us  against  opposing  an  injury  of- 
fered; his  interpreter  will  have  him  only  to  dissuade  us  from 
reven£;ing  an  injury  committed.  Yet  in  the  very  interpretation 
"which  he  gives  of  the  following  words,  he  has  afforded  an  irre- 
fragable evidence  against  himself,  that  it  is  of  the  former  that 
Christ  is  speaking,  and  not  of  the  latter. 

But  it  must  be  owned,  that  there  is  danger  also  on  the  other 
side,  to  which  our  translators  have,  in  rendering  some  passages, 
evidently  leaned.  It  is  in  vain  to  think  to  draw  respect  to  a  law, 
by  straining  it  ever  so  little  beyond  what  consistency  and  right 
reason  will  warrant.  "  Expect  no  good,"  says  the  Bishop  of 
Meaux,  "  from  those  who  overstrain  virtue."  Ne  croyez  jamais 
rien  de  bon  de  ceux  qui  oiitrent  la  vertu,  Hist,  des  Variations, 
&c.  liv.  ii.  ch.  CO.  Nothing  can  be  better  founded  than  this  max- 
im,  though  it  may  justly  surprise  us  to  read  it  in  that  author,  as 


VH.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  67 

nothing  can  be  more  subversive  of  the  whole  fabric  of  monachism. 
There  is  not,  however,  a  more  effectual  method,  than  by  such 
immoderate  stretches,  of  affordinaj  a  shelter  and  apology  for 
transgression.  And  when  once  the  plea  of  impracticability  is 
(though  not  avowedly,  tacitly)  admitted  in  some  cases,  it  never 
fails  to  be  gradually  extended  to  other  cases,  and  comes  at  last  to 
undermine  the  authority  of  the  whole.  That  this,  to  the  great  scan- 
dal of  the  Christian  name,  is  become  too  much  the  way,  in  re- 
■  gard  to  our  Lord's  precepts,  in  all  sects  and  denominations  of 
Christians,  is  a  truth  too  evident  to  admit  a  question. 

27.  Prolong  his  life  one  hour.     L.  xii.  25.  N. 

28.  Mark  (he  lilies  of  the  field.  IIozo  do  they  grozo  ?  KxT»ft,ci3-c- 
r;  Tci  K^tvx  Ts  oiypa  ar^y;  otv^xvei'  So  it  is  commonly  pointed  in  the 
printed  editions.  But  in  tlie  old  MSS.  there  is  no  pointing.  Nor 
are  the  points  to  be  considered  as  resting  on  any  other  than  hu- 
man authority,  like  the  division  into  chapters  and  verses.  I  agree, 
therefore,  with  Palairet,  who  thinks  that  there  should  be  a  full 
stop  after  ay^a^  and  that  the  remaining  words  should  be  marked 
as  an  interrogation,  thus,  Kctrxf^x.^£T£  ra  xpivcc  m  uy^ov.  Uui  ocv. 
|«ve< ;  This  perfectly  suits  both  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  the 
vivacity  of  our  Lord's  manner,  through  the  whole  discourse. 

30.  The  herbage,  Tov  xop'^ov.  E.  T.  The  grass.  But  lilies 
Ere  not  grass  ;  neither  is  grass  fit  for  heating  an  oven.  Thai  the 
lily  is  here  included  under  the  term  x'^'^'^i  's  (if  there  were  no 
other)  sufficient  evidence,  that  more  is  meant  by  it  than  is  signi- 
fied with  us  by  the  term  grass.  I  acknowledge,  however,  that 
the  classical  sense  of  the  Gr.  word  is  grass,  or  hajj.  It  is  a  just 
remark  of  Gro.  that  the  Hebrews  ranked  the  whole  vegetable 
system  under  two  classes,  sj?  ghets,  and  as'jj  ghesheb.  The  first 
is  rendered  |j/A5v,,  or  ^tv^pov,  tree;  to  express  the  second,  the  Se- 
venty have  adopted  ;e«^r®-,  as  their  common  way  was  to  trans, 
late  one  Heb.  word  by  one  Gr.  word,  though  :iot  quite  proper, 
rather  than  by  a  circumlocution.  It  is  accordingly  used  in  their 
version.  Gen.  i.  11.  where  the  distinction  first  occurs,  and  in  most 
other  places.  Nor  is  it  with  greater  propriety  rendered  grass 
in  Eng.  than  x'>?'^o(^  in  Greek.  The  same  division  occurs  Rev. 
viii.  7.  where  our  translators  have  in  like  manner  had  recourse 
to  the  term  grass.     I  have  adopted,  as  coming  ne.arer  the  mean- 


G8  NOTES  ON  cH.  vr-. 

ing  of  the  sacred  writer,  the  word  herbage,  which  Johnson  de- 
fines herbs  collectively.  Under  the  name  herb  is  comprehended 
every  sort  of  plant  which  has  not,  like  trees  and  shrubs,  a  peren- 
nial stalk.  That  many,  if  not  all  sorts  of  shrubs,  were  included, 
by  the  Hebrews,  under  the  denomination  tree,  is  evident  from 
Jotham's  apologue  of  the  trees  chusing  a  king,  Jud.  ix.  7.  where 
the  bramble  is  mentioned  as  one. 

^  Into  the  oven,  en  rov  kmQodidv.  Wes.  info  the  still.  But  on 
what  authority,  sacred  or  profane,  >tA/j3«vo?  is  made  a  still,  he 
does  not  acquaint  us.  For  my  part,  1  have  not  seen  a  vestige  of 
evidence  in  any  ancient  author,  that  the  art  of  distillation  was 
then  known.  The  only  objection  of  moment,  against  the  common 
version  of  KA(/3«ve5,  is  removed  by  the  former  part  of  this  note. 
Indeed,  the  scarcity  of  fewel  in  those  parts,  both  formerly  and  at 
present,  fully  accounts  for  their  having  recourse  to  withered 
herbs  for  heating  their  ovens.  It  accounts,  also,  for  the  frequent 
recourse  of  the  sacred  penmen  to  those  similitudes,  whereby 
things,  found  unfit  for  any  nobler  purpose,  are  represented  as 
reserved  for  the  fire.  See  Harmer's  Observations,  ch.  iv.  obs.  vi. 
As  to  the  words  to-day  and  to-morrow,  every  body  knows  that 
this  is  a  proverbial  idiom,  to  denote  that  the  transition  is  sudden, 

3  0  ye  distrustful!  eXiyoTrtroi.  E.  T.  O  ye  of  little  faith  !  It  is 
quite  in  the  genius  of  the  Gr.  language,  to  express,  by  such  com- 
pound words,  what  in  other  languages  is  expressed  by  a  more 
simple  term.  Nor  do  our  translators,  or  indeed  any  translators, 
always  judge  it  necessary  to  trace,  in  a  periphrasis,  the  several 
parts  of  the  composition.  In  a  few  cases,  wherein  a  single  word 
entirely  adequate  cannot  be  found,  this  method  is  proper,  but 
not  otherwise.  I  have  seen  no  version  which  renders  eA/yoi/^n^o/, 
they  of  little  soul,  or  fA.'M^o6viA.M,  length  of  mind,  or  (piXontMx;,  a 
lover  of  quarrels.  How  many  are  the  words  of  this  kind  in  the 
N.  T.  whose  component  parts  no  translator  attempts  to  exhibit 
in  his  version  ?  Such  are,  ^Pieeve|<«,  lA^iyxXovpeTrvn,  zAsj^ova^fo;,  eU;- 
KBtr/ii;,  and  many  others.  The  word  distrustful  comes  nearer  the 
sense  than  the  phrase  of  little  faith  ;  because  this  may  express 
any  kind  of  incredulity  or  scepticism;  whereas  anxiety  about 
the  things  of  life  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  an  unshaken  trust 
in  the  providence  and  promises  of  God. 


cii.  VI.  S.  MATTHEW.  69 

33.  Seek — the  rigJiteousness  rcqjnrcd  by  him^  ^zTeiTe — rtjv  ^r 
XU10TVV71V  avra.  E.  T.  Seek — Jus  righteousness.  The  righteous, 
ness  of  God.,  in  our  idiom,  can  mean  only  the  justice  or  moral 
Tcctitude  of  the  divine  nature,  which  it  were  absurd  in  us  to  seek, 
it  being,  as  all  God's  attributes  are,  inseparable  from  his  essence. 
But  in  the  Heb.  idiom,  that  righteousness,  which  consists  in  a 
conformity  to  the  declared  will  of  God,  is  called  /;/*  righteous- 
ness. In  this  way  the  phrase  is  used  by  Paul,  Rom.  iii.  21,  22. 
X.  2».  where  the  righteousness  of  God  is  opposed  by  the  Apostle 
to  that  of  the  unconverted  Jews;  and  their  ozcn  righteousness .^ 
which  he  tells  us  they  went  about  to  establish,  does  not  appear 
to  signify  their  personal  righteousness,  any  more  than  the  righ- 
teousness of  God  signifies  his  personal  righteousness.  The  word 
righteousness.,  as  I  conceive,  denotes  there  what  we  should  call 
a  system  of  morality,  or  righteousness,  which  he  denominates 
their  own,  because  fabricated  by  themselves,  founded  partly  on 
the  letter  of  the  law,  partly  on  tradition,  and  consisting  mostly 
in  ceremonies,  and  mere  externals.  This  creature  of  their  own 
imaginations  they  had  cherished,  to  the  neglect  of  that  purer 
scheme  of  morality  which  was  truly  of  God,  which  they  might 
liave  learnt,  even  formerly,  from  the  law  and  the  Prophets  pro- 
perly understood,  but  now,  more  explicitly,  from  the  doctrine 
of  Christ.  That  the  phrase,  the  righteousness  of  God,  in  the 
sense  I  have  given,  was  not  unknown  to  the  O.  T.  writers,  ap. 
pears  from  Micah  vi.  What  is  called,  v.  5.  the  righteousness  of 
the  Lord,  which  God  wanted  that  the  poople  should  know,  is 
explained,  v.  8.  to  be  what  the  Lord  requireth  of  them,  namely, 
to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  zcith  their  God. 
It  is  in  this  sepse  we  ought  to  understand  the  phrase,  James,  i.  ' 
20.  The  wrath  of  man  zaorketh  not  the  righteousness  of  God  ; 
that  is,  is  not  the  proper  means  of  producing  that  righteousness 
vvhich  God  requireth  of  us.  Now,  the  righteousness  of  God, 
meant  in  this  discourse  by  our  Lord,  is  doubtless  what  he  had 
been  explaining  to  them,  and  contrasting  to  the  righteousness  of 
th  ■  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  The  phrase,  seeking  righteousness, 
for  seeking  to  attain  a  conformity  to  the  will  of  God,  is  not  un- 
suitable to  the  Jewish  phraseology.  The  same  expression  occurs, 
1  Mace.  ii.  29.  Then  many  that  sought  after  justice  and  judg~ 
ment,  ^^jrsvres  SitcMoo-vviiv  text  Kptf^ct,  went  down  into  the  wilderness 
to  dwell  there.     And  though  this  book  is  not  admitted  by  Pro- 

VOL.  lY.  9 


70  -  NOTES  ON  cii.  vir. 

teslants  into  the  canon,  it  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  written 
by  a  Jew,  and  entirely  in  the  idiom  of  his  country,  if  not  origin- 
ally in  their  language. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

3.  The  thorn,  ri-,v  ^okov.  E.  T.  The  beam.  That  the  tropes^ 
employed  by  the  Orientals  often  appear  to  Europeans  rather  too 
bold  and  hyperbolical,  is  beyond  a  doubt.  But  I  cannot  help 
thinking,  that  the  effect  has  been,  in  many  cases,  heightened  by 
translators,  who,  when  a  word  admits  different  interpretations, 
seem  sometimes  to  have  preferred  that  which  is  worst  suited  to 
the  figurative  application.  The  Gr.  word  ^exei  has,  even  in  cias- 
sical  use,  more  latitude  of  signification  than  the  Eng.  term  beam. 
It  answers  not  only  to  the  La.  trabs  or  tignum,  a  beam  or  raf. 
tcr^  but  also  to  luncea,  hasta,  a  spear  or  lance.  In  the  latter 
signification,  when  used  figuratively,  I  take  it  to  have  been  near- 
ly synonymous  to  c-koXo-^^,  which,  from  denoting  y^a/«*  aculcatun. 
sudes,  vallus,  seems,  at  least  in  the  use  of  Hellenists,  to  have 
been  employed  to  denote  any  thing  sharp-pointed  (however  lit- 
tle), as  aprickle,  or  thorn.  Thus,  in  Num.  xxxiii.  55.  s-xo/ojt^s  ev 
roii  o<pSxX!Mit;  tl^ftiv.  E.  T.  jfiricks  in  your  eyes  ;  the  Ileb.  term, 
to  which  c-;coAo5r£?  answers,  means  no  more  than  the  Eng.  makes 
it.  The  Gr.  word  is  similarly  rendered  in  the  N.  T.  t^a&7)  (mi 
o-KoXo4'  ev  <!-xpx,i ;  there  zcas  given  to  me  <i  thorn  in  the  Jiesh.  The 
like  may  be  remarked  of /3«A/5,  answering  to  the  La.  words  jV/c«- 
lumt  sagittut  and  to  the  Eng.  missile  zceapon,  of  wliatever  kind, 
javelin,  dart,  or  arrow.  But  in  the  Hellenistic  use,  it  sometimes 
corresponds  to  Ileb.  words,  denoting  no  more  than  prickle  or 
thorn.  Thus  in  Jos.  xxiil.  13.  £<;  ^oXiook;  fv  rati  o/pBuX/^oii  i/i^m  ; 
E.  T.  thorns  in  your  eyes,  the  word  /SoAj?  is  put  for  a  Heb.  term 
which  strictly  means  thorn.  It  is  therefore  evident  that  ^Koq  is 
used  here  by  the  same  trope,  and  in  the  same  meaning  with  g-ko- 
;\flT|/  3-i^tl  /3oA<5  in  the  places  above  quoted.  And  it  is  not  more 
remote  from  our  idiom  to  speak  of  a  pole  or  a  javelin  than  to 
speak  of  a  beam  in  the  eye.  Nor  is  a  greater  liberty  taken  in 
rendering  ^oMi  thorn,  than  in  rendering  /3oA<?  or  a-iceXo-^  in  that 
manner. 

6.  Or,  Kcci.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  wherein  y,eti  is  better  ren- 
dered or  in  our  laneuage  than  and.     The  two  evils  mentioned 


oi.  Til.  S.  MATTHEW.  71 

are  not  ascribed  to  both  sorts  of  animals  ;  the  latter  is  doubtless 
applied  to  the  dogs,  the  former  to  the  szmne.  The  conjunction 
and  would  hero,  tlierefore,  be  equivocal.  Though  the  words 
are  not  in  the  natural  order,  the  sense  cannot  be  mistaken. 

8.  For  whosoever  asketh  obtaineth  ;  zzhosoever  seeketh  find- 
fth.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  29. 

9.  IVho  amongst yoii  men,  t*?  e?-iv  e|  v/luuv  ccvSpuTroi.  E.  T.  IVhat 
man  is  there  of  you.  There  is  evidently  an  emphasis  in  the  w  ord 
uM^puTToc, ;  otherwise,  it  is  superfluous  ;  for  tk;  srtv  £|  of^-uv  is  all  that 
is  necessary  ;  its  situation  at  the  end  of  the  clause  is  another 
proof  of  the  same  thing.  The  w  ord  «v^^«s-a;  here  makes  the  in- 
tended illustration  of  the  goodness  of  the  celestial  Father,  from 
the  conduct  of  even  human  fathers,  with  all  their  imperfections, 
much  more  energetic.  I  think  this  not  sufficiently  marked  in  the 
common  version  ;  for  zchaf  man  is  hardly  any  more  than  a  trans- 
lation of  T/;. 

14.  Hoz>;  strait  is  the  gate.  In  the  common  Gr.  we  read,  on 
r£V!»  ^'  "Ts^rjXyj.  I3ut  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  some  of  them 
of  great  antiquity,  the  reading  is  r<,  not  or;.  This  reading  is  con- 
firmed by  the  Vul.  Quam  an gusta  porta,  and  by  most  of  the  an- 
cient versions,  particularly  by  the  old  Itc.  both  the  Sy.  the  Ara. 
the  Cop.  the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  It  was  so  read  by  Chr.  The.  and 
the  most  eminent  Fathers,  Gr.  and  La.  and  is  received  by  Wet. 
and  some  of  the  best  modern  critics. 

15.  False  teachers, -t^evSoTrpocptiTt^v.  E.  T.  False  prophets.  But 
7rpo(p7iTri<i  not  only  means  a  prophet,  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  one 
divinely  inspired,  and  able  to  foretel  future  events,  but  also  a 
teacher  in  divine  things.  Wlien  it  is  used  in  the  plural  with  the 
article,  and  refers  to  those  of  former  times,  it  always  denotes  the 
prophets  in  the  strictest  sense.  On  most  other  occasions  it  means 
simply  a  teacher  of  religious  truths,  and  consequently  -■^iv^o-Trpo- 
(pijTrtz  a  false  teacher  in  religion.  This  is  especially  to  be  regard- 
ed as  the  sense,  in  a  warning  which  was  to  serve  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  his  disciples  in  every  age.  I  have,  for  the  same  reason, 
translated  7rpceip>}rivo-x/^a,  v.  2*2.  taught ;  which,  notwithstanding 
its  connection  with  things  really  miraculous,  is  better  rendered 
thus  in  this  passage,  because  to  promote  the  knowledge  of  the 
Gospel  is  a  matter  of  higher  consequence,  and  vvould  therefore 
seem  more  to  recommend  men  than  to  foretel  things  future. 


72  NOTES  ON  cii.  vii-. 

^  In  the  garb  of  sheep.,  ev  cv^vf^cco-t  TrpoQocrm.  Si.  renders  it, 
Converts  de  peaiix  tie  hrehis^  and  says  in  a  note,  "  It  is  thus  we 
"  ought  to  translate  indumentis  ov,ium^  because  the  prophets 
^'  were  clothed  with  sheep-skins.''''  It  is  true  the  author  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  xi.  37.  in  enumerating  the  great  things 
which  have  been  done  and  suffered,  through  faith,  by  prophets 
and  other  righteous  persons,  mentions  this,  that  they  wander- 
ed about  in  sheep-skins  and  goal-skins.^  ev  f^i}>iUTciii;  y.m  cnyn. 
«/5  hpfJLXTiv^  being  destitute.,  ajflictcd,  tormented^  alluding  to  the 
persecutions  to  which  many  of  them  were  exposed  from  ido- 
latrous princes.  That  Elijah  was  habited  in  this  manner,  ap- 
pears from  2  Ki.  i.  7,  8.  compared  with  ch.  ii,  13.  and  1  Ki.  xix. 
13.  in  which  two  last  places,  the  word  rendered  in  Eng.  mantle^ 
is,  in  the  Sep.  translated  fojA^r;;.  But  I  have  not  seen  any  rea- 
son to  think  that  this  was  the  common  attire  of  the  prophets. 
The  first  of  the  three  passages  serves  as  evidence,  rather  of  the 
contrary,  inasmuch  as  Elijah  seems  to  have  been  distinguished  by 
his  dress,  not  only  from  other  men,  but  from  other  prophets. 
That  some  indeed  came  afterwards  hypocritically  to  affect  a  simi- 
lar garb,  in  order  to  deceive  the  simple,  is  more  than  probable, 
from  Zech.  xiil.  4.  But,  whatever  be  in  this,  as  iv^vi^a  does  not 
signify  a  skin,  there  is  no  reason  for  making  the  expression  in 
the  translation  more  limited  than  in  the  original. 

17.  Evil  tree,  G-nTrpov  hv^pov.  E.  T.  Corrupt  tree.  The  word 
c-xTrpoz  does  not  always  mean  rotten  or  corrupted,  but  is  often 
used  as  synonymous  to  ^evjj/)e5,  evil.  Trees  of  a  bad  kind  pro- 
duce bad  fruit,  but  not  in  consequence  of  any  rottenness  or  cor. 
ruption.  See  ch.  xiii.  48.  where,  in  the  similitude  of  the  net, 
which  enclosed  fishes  of  every  kind,  the  worthless,  which  were 
thrown  away,  ^re  called  ra  votTcpx,  rendered  in  the  common  ver- 
sion the  bad.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  this  epithet  does 
not  denote  that  those  fishes  were  putrid,  but  solely  that  they 
were  of  a  noxious  or  poisonous  quality,  and  consequently  use- 
less, 

23.  /  never  kncic  you  ;  that  is,  /  never  ackoicledged  i/ou  for 
mine, 

^  Ye  who  practise  i?iiquitjj,  ii  ipyoi^o/^aat  t^v  «v«m-!«v.  Be.  Qui 
operam  datis  iniquitati.     Diss.  X.  P.  V.  §  12. 


cH.  viii.  S.  MATTHEW.  73 

28.  At  his  maimer  of  teaching^  btti  tti  h§ct,x,^  uvtov.  E.  T.  At 
his  doctrine.  The  word  ^iSu^^  denotes  often  the  doctrine  taught, 
sometimes  the  act  of  teaching,  and  sometimes  even  the  maimer  of 
teaching.  That  this  is  the  import  of  the  expression  here,  is  evi. 
dent  from  the  verse  immediately  following. 

29.  As  the  Scribes.  The  Vul.  Sy.  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions, 
with  one  MS.  add,  and  the  Pharisees. 

CHAPTER  VIII, 

4.  The  Sy.  says,  the  priests,  but  in  this  reading  is  singular. 

^  For  notifying  the  cure  to  the  fieoplc.,  eii  f^a^rv^tev  ccvtok;.  E. 
T.  For  a  testimony/  unto  them.  Both  the  sense  and  the  connec- 
tion shew  that  the  them  here  means  the  people.  It  could  not  be 
the  priests,  for  it  was  only  one  priest  (to  wit,  the  priest  then  en- 
trusted with  that  business)  to  whom  he  was  commanded  to  go. 
Besides,  the  oblation  could  not  serve  as  an  evidence  to  the  priest. 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  have  ocular 
evidence  by  an  accurate  inspection  in  private,  before  the  man  was 
admitted  into  the  temple  and  allowed  to  make  the  oblation  ;  but 
his  obtaining  this  permission,  and  the  solemn  ceremony  conse- 
quent upon  it,  was  the  public  testimony  of  the  priest,  the  only 
legal  judge,  to  the  people,  that  the  man's  uncleanness  was  re- 
moved. This  was  a  matter  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  the 
man,  and  of  some  consequence  to  them.  Till  such  testimony  was 
given,  he  lived  in  a  most  uncomfortable  seclusion  from  society. 
No  man  durst,  under  pain  of  being  also  secluded,  admit  him  inta 
his  house,  eat  with  him,  or  so  much  as  touch  him.  The  antece- 
dent therefore  to  the  pronoun  them,  though  not  expressed,  is 
easily  supplied  by  the  sense.  To  me  it  is  equally  clear,  that  the 
only  thing  meant  to  be  attested  by  the  oblation  was  the  cure. 
The  suppositions  of  some  commentators  on  this  subject  are  quite 
extravagant.  Nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  the  person 
now  cleansed  was  not  permitted  to  give  any  testimony  to  the 
priest,  or  to  any  other,  concerning  the  manner  of  his  cure,  or  the 
person  by  whom  it  had  been  performed,  'opa  f^ti^evi  uttth,  See 
thou  tell  nobody.  The  prohibition  is  expressed  by  the  Evange- 
list Mr.  in  still  stronger  terms.  Prohibitions  of  this  kind  were 
often  transgressed  by  those  who  received  them  ;  but  that  is  not  a 
good  reason  for  representing  our  Lord  as  giving  contradictory 
orders. 


74  •  NOTES  ON  ch.  viii. 

6.  Ajjiided^  iiciTxvi^«iu.s<joi.  E.  T.  Tormented.  The  Greek 
word  is  not  confined,  especially  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  to  this 
signification,  but  often  denotes  simply  (as  has  been  observed  by 
Gro.  and  Ham.)  afflicted^  or  distressed.  Palsies  are  not  attend- 
ed with  torment. 

13.  That  instcmt,  iv  rrj  apu,  ivteivvj.  E.  T.  hi  the  self  same  hour. 
But  a^ce.  does  not  always  mean  hour.  This  is  indeed  the  mean- 
ing when  it  is  joined  with  a  number,  whether  ordinal  or  cardi- 
nal ;  as.  He  went  out  about  the  third  hour.,  and.  Are  there  not 
twelve  hours  in  the  day  ?  On  other  occasions  it  more  commonly 
denotes  the  precise  time,  as.  Mine  hour  is  not  yet  come. 

15.  Him.  The  common  Gr.  copies  have  ocvroKi  them.  But  the 
reading  is  ocvrw  in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  several  of  them  an- 
cient; it  is  supported  also  by  some  of  the  old  versions  and  fa- 
thers, is  approved  by  Mill  and  Wet.  and  is  more  agreeable  than 
the  other  to  the  words  in  construction,  none  but  Jesus  having 
been  mentioned  in  the  preceding  words. 

17.  Verifying  the  saying  of  the  firophet.  We  have  here  a  re- 
marliable  example  of  the  latitude  in  which  the  word  vXtipou  is 
used.  Ch.  i.  22.  N.  In  our  sense  of  the  term  fulfilling.,  we 
should  rather  call  that  ihG  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy,  which  is 
mentioned  1  Pet.  iv.  21.  I  have,  in  translating  the  quotation, 
rendered  t>M.Qe  carried  o^,  of  which  the  original  Heb.  as  well  as 
the  Gr.  is  capable,  that  the  words,  as  far  as  propriety  admits, 
may  be  conformable  to  the  application. 

18.  To  pass  to  the  opposite  shore.  Let  it  be  remarked,  once 
for  all,  that  passing  or  crossing  this  lake  or  sea,  does  not  always 
denote  sailing  from  the  east  side  to  the  west,  or  inversely;  though 
the  river  Jordan,  both  above  and  below  the  lake,  ran  south- 
wards. The  lake  was  of  such  a  form,  that,  without  any  impro- 
priety, it  might  be  said  to  be  crossed  in  other  directions,  even  by 
those  who  kept  on  the  same  side  of  the  Jordan. 

19.  Rabbi,  h^oiTy.xXe.     Diss.  VII.  P.  II. 

20.  Caverns,  /puXiisc,.  The  word  t^aXi®^  denotes  the  den,  ca- 
vern, or  kennel,  which  a  wild  beast,  by  constantly  haunting  it, 
appropriates  to  himself. 

^  Places  of  shelter,  KarxTKi^vtua-sti,  E.  T.  Nests.  But  kxtxt. 
w,mirti  signifies  a  place  for  shelter  and  repose,  a  perch  or  roost. 


CH.  Tin.  S.  MATTHEW.  7a 

The  Gr.  name  for  nest,  or  place  for  hatching,  is  vos-cnK,  which  oc- 
curs often  in  this  sense  in  the  Sep.  as  moo-evu  does  for  to  build  a 
nest.  But  5is4Ts£^)C}!v«5-<5  is  never  so'employed.  The  verb  x«r«5-. 
iuivou  is  used  by  the  Evangelists  Mt.  Mr.  and  L.  speaking  of 
birds,  to  express  their  taking  shelter^  perching,  or  roosting  on 
branches.  In  the  common  version  it  is  rendered  by  the  verb  to 
lodge. 

22.  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead.  This  expression  is  evi* 
dently  figurative  ;  the  word  dead  having  one  meaning  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  sentence,  and  another  in  the  end.  The  import  is, 
'  Let  the  spiritually  dead,  those  who  are  no  better  than  dead, 
'  being  insensible  to  the  concerns  of  the  soul  and  eternity,  em- 
^  ploy  themselves  in  burying  those  who,  in  the  common  accepta- 
'  tion  of  the  word,  are  dead.'' 

26.   Commanded,  emrif^ijtre.     Mr.  ix,  25.  N. 

28.  Gadarenes.  I  agree  with  Wet.  that  Gergcsenes  appears 
to  have  been  introduced  by  Origen  upon  mere  conjecture.  Ori- 
gen's  words  imply  as  much.  Before  him  most  copies  seem  to 
have  read  Gadarenes,  but  some  Gerasenes.  The  latter  is  the 
reading  of  the  Vul.  and  of  the  second  Sy.  The  former  is  prefe- 
rable on  many  accounts,  and  is  the  reading  of  the  first  Sy.  I  shall 
only  add,  that  if  Origen's  conjectural  correction  were  to  be  ad- 
mitted, it  ought  to  be  extended  to  the  parallel  places  in  Mr. 
and  L. 

^  Demoniacs.     Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  §  7,  &-c.  _ 

29.  What  hast  thou  to  do  zcith  us  ?  n  ^'iu.iv  xxi  o-oi.  E.  T. 
What  have  we  to  do  with  thee?  The  sense  of  both  expressions 
is  the  same.  .  But  the  first  is  more  in  the  form  of  an  expostula- 
tion.    J.  ii.  4.      ^N.  , 

30.  At  some  distance,  f^xxpetv.  Y^.T.  A  good  way  oJ)\  Vul. 
Non  longe  probably  from  some  copy  which  read  a  i^ock^m.  This 
is  one  of  those  ditferences  wherein  there  is  more  the  appearance 
of  discrepancy  than  the  reality.  In  such  general  ways  of  speak- 
ing, there  is  always  a  tacit  comparison  ;  and  the  same  thing  may 
be  denominated /«r,  or  not  far,  according  to  the  extent  of  ground 
with  which,  in  our  thoughts,  we  compare  it.  At  some  distance 
suits  perfectly  the  sense  of  the  Gr.  word  in  this  place,  is  con- 
formable to  the  rendering  given  in  the  Sy.  and  makes  no  diffe- 
rence in  meaning  from  the  La.  The  word  f^etx-pod-iv  (L.  xviii.  13.) 


Th  JVOTES  ON  cii.  IX, 

where  it  is  said  of  the  Publican  fi.»)cpe9-sv  £5-<y?,  must  be  understood 
in  the  same  way.  Afar  off,  as  it  is  rendered  in  the  E.  T.  sounds 
oddly  in  our  ears,  when  we  reflect  that  both  the  Pharisee  and  the 
Publican  were  in  the  outer  court  of  the  temple,  on  the  same  side 
of  the  court,  and  in  sight  of  each  other,  at  least,  if  not  within 
hearing. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

2.  Thi/  sins  are  forgiven  thee,  et/psmrxi  trot  ui  ci/^ctpTixt  ca.  E. 
T.  Thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee.  The  words  are  an  affirmation, 
not  a  prayer  or  wish.  As  a  prayer,  the  Scribes  would  not  have 
objected  to  them.  At  the  time  the  common  version  was  made, 
the  words  be  forgiven  were  equivocal,  they  would  now  be  im- 
proper. At  that  time  be  was  often  used  in  the  indicative  plural, 
for  what  we  always  say  at  present  arc.  But  even  then,  it  would 
have  been  better,  in  this  instance,  to  say  are,  which  Avas  also 
used,  and  would  have  totally  removed  the  ambiguity. 

3.  This  man  blasphemeth.     Diss.  X.  P.  II.  §  14. 

5.  Thy  sins  are  forgiven,  ci<piMvru,i  a-oi  ui  oifAJxpricn.  But  there 
is  a  small  difference  of  reading  here.  Many  MSS.  amongst  which 
are  some  of  principal  note,  have  c-«  instead  of  c-ot,  a  few  have 
both  pronouns.  Agreeable  to  these  last  are  the  Vul.  both  the 
Sy.  Ara.  Eth.  and  Sax.  I  have  followed,  with  Wet.  that  which 
seems  best  supported  by  number  and  antiquity. 

^  Or  to  say  [zaith  effect,']  Arise  and  walk.  The  supply  of 
the  words  in  this  clause,  is,  if  not  necessary,  at  least,  convenient, 
for  showing  more  clearly  the  scope  of  the  sentiment.  Merely  to 
say,  that  is,  to  pronounce  the  words  of  either  sentence,  is,  no 
doubt,  equally  easy  to  any  one.  And  to  say  both  with  effect 
were  equally  easy  to  our  Lord.  Now,  if  the  former  only  was 
said.  Thy  sitis  arc  forgiven,  the  effect  was  invisible,  and  for 
aught  the  people  could  know,  there  might  be  no  effect  at  all. 
But  to  say  to  a  man  manifestly  disabled  by  palsy.  Arise  and 
vculk,  when  instantly  the  man,  in  the  sight  of  all  present,  arises 
and  walks,  is  an  ocular  demonstration  of  the  power  with  which 
the  order  was  accompanied,  and  therefore  was  entirely  fit  for 
serving  as  evidence,  that  the  other  expression  he  had  used,  was 
not  vain  words,  but  attended  with  the  like  divine  energy,  though 
from  its  nature,  not  discoverable  like  the  other,  by  its  conse- 
quences.    To  say  the  one  with  effect  whose  eHeci  was  visible  is. 


GH,.  IX. 


S.  MATTHEW.  77 


a  proof,  that  the  other  was  said  also  with  effect,  though  the  effect 
itself  was  invisible.  This  is  the  use  which  our  Lord  makes  of 
this  cure,  v.  6.     But  that  ye  may  know,  Sec. 

8.  Wondered,  i&xvy.uo-x.v.  Vul.  Timuerunt.  This  doubtless 
arises  from  a  ditferent  reading.  Accordingly  e(poQyi6vi<J-oi,v  is  found 
in  three  or  four  MSS.  agreeable  to  which  are  also  the  Sy.  the  Co. 
the  Sax.  and  the  Cop.  versions.  The  common  reading  not  only 
has  the  advantage  in  point  of  evidence,  but  is  more  clearly  con- 
nected with  the  context. 

9.  At  the  toll. office,  s-Ts-t  ro  nXmtov.  E.  T.  At  the  receipt  of 
custom.  But  the  word  receipt  in  this  sense  seems  now  to  be  ob. 
solete.  Some  late  translators  say  at  the  custom-house.  But  have 
we  any  reason  to  think  it  was  a  house  ?  The  Sy.  name  is  no  evi- 

■  dence  that  it  was  ;  for,  like  the  Hebrews,  they  use  the  word 
heth,  especially  in  composition,  with  great  latitude  of  significa- 
tion. Most  probably  it  was  a  temporary  stall  or  moveable  booth, 
which  could  easily  be  erected  in  any  place  where  occasion  re- 
quired. The  name  tollbooth,  which  Ham.  seems  to  have  prefer- 
red, would  at  present  be  very  unsuitable,  as  that  word,  however 
well  adapted  in  point  of  etymology,  is  now  confined  to  the  mean- 
ing of  jail  or  prison.  The  word  office,  for  a  place  where  any 
particular  business  is  transacted,  whether  within  doors  or  with, 
out,  is  surely  unexceptionable. 

10.  At  table.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3—7. 

13.  /  require  humanity,  eXeav  6eXu.  E.  T.  I  v)ill  have  mercy. 
But  this  last  expression  in  Eng.  means  properly,  /  zcill  exercise 
mercy.  In  the  prophet  here  referred  to,  our  translators  had  ren- 
dered the  verb  much  better,  /  desired.  They  ought  not  to  have 
changed  the  word  here. 

2  Humanity.  E.  T.  Mercy.  The  Gr.  word  commonly  an- 
swers, and  particularly  in  this  passage,  to  a  Heb.  term  of  more 
extensive  signification  than  mercy,  which,  in  strictness,  denotes 
only  clemency  to  the  guilty  and  the  miserable.  This  sense 
(though  Phavorinus  thinks  otherwise)  is  included  in  tXcoi,  which 
is  sometimes  properly  translated  mercy,  but  it  is  not  all  that  is 
included.  And  in  an  aphorism,  like  that  quoted  in  the  text,  it 
is  better  to  interpret  the  word  in  its  full  latitude.  The  Heb. 
term  employed  by  the  prophet  Hosea,  in  the  place  quoted,  is  len 

VOL.  IV.  10 


78  NOTES  ON  en.  ix. 

chesed,  a  general  name  for  all  the  kind  afifections.  See  D.  VI. 
P.  IV.  §  18. 

^  ^4nd  not  sacff/lce,  for  more  than  sacrifice^  a  noted  Hebraism. 

■*  To  reformation^  et^  /Asrocvomv.  These  words  are  wanting  in 
a  good  many  MSS.  There  is  nothing  to  correspqnd  to  them  in 
the  Vul.  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions.  Critics  are  divided 
about  them.  To  me  there  scarcely  appears  sufficient  evidence 
for  rejecting  them.  Besides,  it  is  allowed  by  all,  that  if  they  be 
not  expressed  in  this  place,  they  are  understood. 

15.  Bridemen.     Mr.  ii.  19.  N. 

16.  Undressed  cloth,  ^axui;  enyvx'Pii.  E.  T.  Nezc  cloth.  That 
this  gives  in  effect  the  same  sense  cannot  be  doubted,  as  it  an- 
swers literally  to  the  expression  used  by  L.  who  says  ifA^ccTia 
Kxiva.  But  as  the  expressions  are  different,  and  not  even  synony- 
mous ;  I  thought  it  better  to  allow  each  Evangelist  to  express 
himself  in  his  own  manner. 

17.  Old  leathern  bottles,  cfrnni;  TraXxnn;.  E.  T.  Old  bottles. 
Ary^g  is  properly  a  vessel  for  holding  liquor.  Such  vessels  were 
commonly  then,  and  in  some  countries  are  still,  of  leather,  which 
were  not  easily  distended  when  old,  and  were  consequently  more 
ready  to  burst  by  the  fermentation  of  the  liquor.  As  this  does 
not  hold  in  regard  to  the  bottles  used  by  us,  I  thought  it  better, 
in  translating,  to  add  a  word  denoting  the  materials  of  which 
their  vessels  were  made. 

18.  Is  bi/  this  time  dead,  xprt  ireXevrtiirsv.  E.  T.  Is  even  now 
dead.  Philostrat.  ccpri^  Trifit  rov  Kcctpov  ra)v  p^jftar^v.  Bi/  this  time 
{lead,  a  natural  conjecture  concerning  one  whom  he  had  left  a- 
dying.  As  the  words  are  evidently  susceptible  of  this  interpreta- 
tion, candour  requires  that  it  be  preferred,  being  the  most  con- 
formable to  the  accounts  of  this  miracle  given  by  the  other  his- 
torians. 

20.  The  tuft  of  his  mantle,  m  Kpuc-n^n  m  'i/iLxriH  uvm.  E.  T. 
The  hem  of  his  garment.  The  Jewish  mantle,  or  upper  garment, 
was  considered  as  consisting  of  four  quarters,  called  in  the  Ori- 
ental idiom  wings,  '/rrepvyta.  Every  wing  contained  one  corner, 
whereat  was  suspended  a  tuft  of  threads  or  strings,  which  they 
called  KpetFTre^ov.  See  Num.  xv.  37.  Deut.  xxii.  12.  What  are 
there  called  fringes  are  those  strings,  and  the  four  quarters  of 
the  vesture  are  the  four  corners.    In  the  Sy.  version  the  word  is 


cK.  IX.  S.  MATTHEW.  7» 

rendered  wnp,  karna,  corner.  As  iti  the  first  of  the  passages 
above  referred  to,  they  are  mentioned  as  serving  to  make  them 
remember  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  to  do  them,  there  was 
conceived  to  be  a  special  sacredness  in  them  (see  ch.  xxiii.  5.), 
which  must  have  probably  led  the  woman  to  tliink  of  touching 
that  part  of  his  garment  rather  than  any  other.  They  are  not 
properly,  says  Lamy,  des  /ranges  in  our  language,  but  des 
hoitpes.  See  his  description  of  them  and  of  the  phylacteries, 
Commentarius  in  Harmoniam,  lib.  v.  cap.  xi.  Sc.  has  rendered 
it  in  this  place /nw^e;  but  this  word  answers  worse  than  hem^ 
for  their  garments  had  no  fringes. 

27.  Son  of  Duvid.  This  was  probably  meant  as  acknowledg- 
ing him  to  be  the  Messiah  ;  for  at  this  time  it  appears  to  have 
been  universally  understood  that  the  Messiah  would  be  a  de- 
scendant of  David. 

30.  Their  eyes  were  opened.  A  Heb.  idiom,  neither  remote 
nor  inelegant,  to  denote,  Thcij  received  their  sight. 

^  Strictly  charging  them.,  said.,  tveopi/^ijTXTi  avTon;  Xzyu^.  Vul. 
Comminatus  est  illis,  dicens.  Si.  who  translates  from  the  Vul. 
says,  Leur  dit.^  en  les  menacant  riidement ;  vphere,  instead  of 
softening  the  harsh  words  of  his  author,  the  La.  translator,  he 
has  rendered  them  still  harsher.  Li  another  placq,  Mr.  i.  43. 
ejK,te^<i«,^5-«jM,£va5  civTM  Xeyei  is  thus  expressed  in  his  translation,  e?i 
lui  disant  avec  de  fortes  menaces.  It  is  strange  that,  when  the 
very  words  used  by  our  Lord,  on  both  these  occasions,  are  re- 
lated by  the  Evangelist,  in  which  there  is  nothing  of  either  threat 
or  harshness,  an  interpreter  should  imagine  that  this  is  implied 
in  the  verb.  Si.  may  use  for  his  apology  that  he  translates  from 
the  Vul.  The  Sy.  translator,  who  understood  better  the  Orien- 
tal idiom,  renders  the  Gr.  verb  by  a  word  in  ^y.  which  implies 
simply  he  forbade,  he  prohibited.     Mr.  ix.  25.  N. 

35.  Among  the  people.,  e*  ra  Xaa.  This  clause  is  wanting  in. 
many  MSS.  in  the  Vul.  the  Sy.  and  most  other  ancient  versions. 
As  in  this  case  the  evidence  on  the  opposite  sides  may  be  said  to 
balance  each  other,  and  as  the  admission  or  the  rejection  makes 
no  alteration  in  the  sense;  that  the  clause  possesses  a  place  in  the 
common  Gr.  editions,  and  in  the  E.  T.  is  here  sufhcicnt  ground 
for  deciding  in  its  favour. 

36.  He  had  compassion  upon  them,  iT7rXzyx;via:'hi  Trcpt  arvTmv. 
E.  T.  He  teas  moved  with  compassion  on  them,     Vul.  Miseries 


80  NOTES  ON 


CH.  IX; 


est  eis.    Be.  imagining  there  was  something  particularly  expres- 
sive in  the  Greek  verb  here  used,  has  rendered  this  clause  rnm~ 
miseratione  intima  commotus  est  super  eis,  and  is  followed  by 
Pise.     Er.  seems  to  have  had  in  some  degree  the  same  notion. 
He  says,  Affecfu  misericordice  tactus  est  erga  illos,  and  is  fol- 
lowed by  Cal.   Leo  de  Juda  adds  only  intimc  to  misertus  est.  Cas. 
has  preferred  the  unaffected  simplicity  of  the  Vul.  and  said  miser- 
tus est  eorum.  Lu.  has  taken  the  same  method.   Be.'s  opinion  had 
great  weight  with  the  Protestant  translators  of  that  age  who  came 
after  him.     Dio.  says,  Se7ie  mosse  a  gran  pieia.     G.  F.  //  fuf 
esmeu  de  compassion  envers  icelles,  which  is  literally  the  same 
with  our  common  version,  and  which  has  also  been  adopted  by 
L.  Cl.     The  P.   R.  translators,  Ses  entraitles  furent  emues  de 
compassion.     Sa,  after  the   Vul.  says   simply,   II  en  eut  com. 
passion.     Si.  to  the  same  purpose,  //  en   eut  pitie.     So  does 
Beau,  who  translates  from  the  Gr.   Of  the  late  Eng.  translations, 
An.  Dod.  Wor.  and  Wa.  follow  the  common  version.     Wes.  has 
chosen  to  go  beyond  it,  lie  reus  moved  zcilh  tender  compassion 
for  them.      But  Wy.  has   in   this  way  outstript  them  all.   His 
bowels  yearned  uifh  compassioti  on  them.     Sc.  and  Hey.  render 
the  expression  as  I  do.     Those  strange  efforts  to  say  something 
extraordinary  result  from  an  opinion  founded  on  etymology,  of 
the  signification  of  the  Gr.  word  6-^>iflty%v(^oft,«<  from  o-TrXwyy^vct,, 
viscera,  the  bowels.    This  they  consider  as  corresponding  to  the 
Heb.  ani  richam,  both  noun  and  verb.     The  noun  in  the  plural 
is  sometimes  interpreted  c-5rA«y%v£«.     The  verb  is  never  by  the 
Seventy  rendered  e-xA«y;(iv<^ojM,«c;,  a  word  which  does  not  occur  in 
that  version,  but  generally  eXeia  or  ourupu,  which  occur  often, 
and  are  rendered  /  have  compassion,  I  have  mercy,  or  I  have 
pity.     Nay,  the  Heb.  word  frequently  occurs  joined  with  a  ne- 
gative particle,  manifestly  denoting  to  have  no  mercy,  &c.   Now 
for  this  purpose  the  verb  richam  would  be  totally  unfit,  if  it 
signified  to  be  affected  with  an  uncommon  degree  of  compassion ; 
all  that  would  be  then  implied  in  it,  when  joined  with  a  negative, 
would  be,  that  an   uncommon  degree  of  compassion  was  not 
shown.     In  the  historical  part  of  the  N.  T.   where  the  word 
o-;r>iCty^vi(^6f/.xt  occurs  pretty  often,  and  always  in  the  same  sense, 
not  one  of  those  interpreters  who  in  this  passage  find  it  so  won- 
derfully emphatical,  judge  it  proper  always  to  adhere  to  their 
method  of  rendering  adopted  here,  but  render  it  barely  /  have 


OH.  IX.  S.  MATTHEW.  81 

compassion.  Even  Wes.  who  has  been  more  uniform  than  the 
rest,  has  thought  fit  to  desert  his  favourite  phrase,  in  translating 
Mr.  ix.  22.  where  the  man  who  brought  his  son  to  Jesus  to  be 
cured,  says,  as  he  renders  it,  If  thou  canst  do  any  thing,  have 
compassion  on  us^  <r'^^»'yx^i<j-B-£ii  £<p^  ij/^xi,  and  help  us.  So  also 
says  Wy.  Both  have  been  sensible  that  emotions  of  tender  com. 
passion^  and  the  yearning  of  the  bozcels^  would  make  an  awkward 
and  affected  figure  in  this  place.  The  plea  from  etymology,  in  ' 
a  point  which  ought  to  be  determined  solely  by  use,  where  use 
can  be  discovered,  is  very  weak.  If  I  should  render  this  ex- 
prpssion  in  Cicero,  stomachabatur,  si  quid  asperius  dixerim ; 
if  i  happened  to  use  a  severe  expression,  instantly  his  stomach 
zcas  disordered  with  vexation.,  I  believe  I  should  be  thought  to 
translate  ridiculously.  And  yet  the  last  clause  is  exactly  in  the 
same  taste  w'th  his  bowels  yearned  zcith  compassion.  The  style 
of  the  Evangelists  is  chaste  and  simple ;  no  effort  in  them  to  say 
extraordinary  things,  or  in  an  extraordinary  manner.  The  dic- 
tion, if  not.  when  judged  by  the  rhetorician's  rules,  pure  and 
elegant,  is  however  natural,  easy,  and  modest.  Though  they 
did  not  seek  out  fine  words,  the  plainest,  and,  to  that  class  of 
people  w  ith  whom  they  were  conversant,  the  most  obvious,  came 
unsought.  They  aimed  at  no  laboured  antitheses,  no  rounded 
periods,  no  ambitious  epithets,  no  accumulated  superlatives. 
There  is  a  naked  beauty  in  their  manner  which  is  entirely  their 
own.  And  with  all  the  faults  of  the  Vul.  the  barbarisms  and 
solecisms  with  which  it  is  chargeable,  it  has,  in  many  places, 
more  of  that  beautiful  but  unadorned  simplicity  than  most  mo- 
dern translations.  I  should  not  have  been  at  so  much  pains, 
where  there  is- no  material  diflerence  of  meaning,  but  to  take  an 
occasion  of  shevving,  once  for  all,  how  idly  some  bestow  their 
labour,  hunting  after  imaginary  emphasis,  through  the  obscure 
mazes  of  etymology  ;  a  method  which,  in  explaining  any  author 
in  any  language,  could,  with  the  greatest  facility,  be  employed 
to  make  him  say  what  he  never  formed  a  conception  of.  Diss. 
IV.  §  26. 

^  They  raere  scattered  and  exposed,  jjc-^v  ex.X(?^v,u;voi  y,xi  epftf^f^e. 
vol.  E.  T.  They  fainted  and  zcere  scattered  abroad.  It  is  ac- 
knowledged that  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  the  word  is 
not  £KXeXvfA,ivai,  but  e(rx,v>.fA.ivoi.  In  regard  to  the  reading  in  tliose 
copieSj  from  which  the  Vul.  and  other  ancient  translations  were 


82  NOTES  ON  cii.  x. 

made  this  is  one  of  those  cases  in  which  nothing  can  be  con- 
cluded with  certainty.  The  reason  is,  one  of  the  senses  of  the 
word  e^tAfPiyiM-EKfl/,  namely,  fMigued^  exhausted^  nearly  coincides 
with  the  meaning  of  cc-y.v>^f^ivoi  ;  consequently  the  version  might 
have  been  the  same,  whichsoever  way  it  stood  in  the  translator's 
copy.  Now  if  these  translations  be  set  aside,  the  preponderancy 
is  not  such  as  ought  in  reason  to  determine  us  against  the  read- 
ing which  suits  best  the  context.  To  me  the  common  reading 
appears,  in  this  respect,  preferable.  Now  the  word  sxAfw,  when 
applied  either  to  a  flock  or  to  a  multitude  of  people,  means  dts- 
sipo,  I  scatter^  as  well  as  debilito^  I  weaken;  nor  can  any  thing 
be  better  suited  to  the  scope  of  the  passage.  Be.  has  preferred 
that  sense,  and  Eisner  has  well  supported  it,  as  he  has,  in  like 
manner,  the  true  meaning  of  (jtytf^y-tvoi  in  this  place,  as  signify- 
ing exposed.  This  interpretation  has  also  the  advantage  of  be- 
i'Ag  equally  adapted  to  the  literal  sense,  and  to  the  figurative ;  to 
the  similitude  introduced,  and  to  that  with  which  the  comparison 
is  made.  It  is  not  a  natural  consequence  of  the  absence  of  the 
shepherd  that  the  sheep  should  be  jatigued  and  worn  out,  or 
languid,  but  it  is  the  consequence  that  they  should  be  scattered 
and  exposed  to  danger.  The  shepherd  prevents  their  wandering, 
and  protects  them. 

CHAPTER  X. 

2.  Afiostles,  cfTTo^tt'km .  That  is  missionaries-,  messengers.  It 
is  rarely  applied  to  any  but  those  whom  God,  or  one  represent- 
ing his  person,  as  the  chief  magistrate  or  the  high  priest,  sends 
on  business  of  importance.  The  word  occurs  only  once  in  the 
Septuagint.  1  Ki.  xiv.  6.  where  Ahijah  the  prophet  is,  by  those 
interpreters,  represented  as  saying  to  the  wife  of  Jeroboam,  'Eyu 
itf^i  x7ro?-oX'^  ■srpo<i  o-i  trKXiipoq.  After  the  captivity,  in  our  Lord's 
time,  the  term  was  applied  to  those  whom  the  high  priest  chose 
for  counsellors,  and  to  whom  he  commonly  gave  commission  to 
collect  the  tribute  payable  to  the  temple  from  the  Jews  in  dis. 
tant  regions.  It  continued  in  use,  as  we  learn  from  Jerom,  after 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  and  dispersion  of  the  people  by  Ti- 
tus Vespasian.  Thus,  accounting  for  the  expression  used  by 
Paul,  Gal.  i.  1.  he  says,  "  Usque  hodie  a  patriarchis  Judaeorum 
*'  apostolos  mitti  constat.  Ad  distinctionem  itaque  eorum  qui 
<'  mittuntur,  ab  hominibus  et  sui,  qui  sit  missus  a  Christo,  tale 


CH.  X.  S.MATTHEW.  83 

"  sumpsit  exordium,  Paulus  apostolus,  non  ab  hominibus,  ne. 
"  que  per  hominem.'"  We  may  add  that  in  the  N.  T.  the  term 
is  once  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  himself,  Ileb.  iii.  1.  Some  are 
denominated,  2  (Cor.  viii.  23.  ct7roro>Mt  cK>i.>^<n6iv.  But  the  denomi. 
nation,  Apostles  of  Christ,  seems  to  have  been  given  to  none  but 
the  twelve,  Matthias  who  was  substituted  in  the  place  of  Judas, 
and  Paul  and  Barnabas  who  were  commissioned  to  the  Gentiles, 
J.  X.  36. 

^  The  first  Simon,  Trpurog  Ziy^v.  Though  the  Gr.  here  has  no 
article,  it  is  necessary  to  translate  it  the  first,  otherwise  the  word 
first  would  be  an  adverb,  and  could  answer  only  to  tt^utcv. 

^  James,  Ixx.u'^oz.  The  name  is  the  same  with  that  of  the  Pa. 
triarch  ;  but  immemorial  custom  has  appropriated  in  our  lan- 
guage the  name  James  to  the  two  Apostles,  and  Jacob  to  the 
Patriarch.     Diss.  XII.  P.  III.  §  13. 

■*  James,  son  of  Zebedee,  laKwQoi  o  ra  ZeQe^xta.^   And, 

3.  James,  son  of  Alpheus,  IxKuQa^  o  m  AX^mh.  In  both 
the  above  instances  the  Gr.  article  serves  merely  for  supplying 
the  ellipsis.  It  occupies  the  place  of  hto^,  and  is  therefore  more 
justly  rendered  son  than  the  son.  Ch.  i.  G.  N. 

4.  Canunite,  K«v«v;t>j?.  E.  T.  Canaanite.  But  this  is  the 
name,  always  given  in  the  O.  T.  to  a  descendant  of  Canaan,  son 
of  Ham,  and  grandson  of  Noah ;  and  is  in  Gr.  not  Kxvxvtnji  but 
Xotvxvxiog.  The  Vul.  indeed  seems  to  have  read  so,  rendering  it 
Chananceus.  But  this  reading  is  not  supported  by  either  ver. 
sions  or  MSS.  nor  has  it  any  internal  probability  to  recommend 
it.  Some  think  the  Gr.  word  imports  a  native  or  inhabitant  of 
Cana  in  Galilee.  Others  are  of  opinion  that  it  is  a  Sy.  word 
used  by  Mt.  and  Mr.  of  the  same  import  with  the  Gr.  ^^jA^t;;; 
employed  by  L.  in  reference  to  the  same  person.     L.  vi.  15.  N. 

^  He  zi^ho  betrayed  him,  o  xxt  Trei^x^m;  ccvrev.  Vul.  Qui  et  trom 
didit  eum.  Er.  Zu,  Be.  Cas.  Pise,  and  Cal.  all  use  prodidit,  in- 
stead oi  tradidit.  All  modern  translators  I  am  acquainted  with 
(except  Beau,  and  Si.  who  say,  qui  livra  Jesus),  whether  they 
translate  from  the  Gr.  or  from  the  Vnl.  have  in  this  particular 
followed  the  modern  La.  interpreters.  Now  it  is  evident  that  in 
this  the  Vul.  has  adhered  more  closely  both  to  the  letter  and  to  the 
spirit  of  the  original  than  the  other  versions.  Uxpx^avxi,  Wet. 
observes,  is  tradere,  Tr^e^avxt  is  prodere.  The  former  expresses 
simply  the  fact,  without  any  note  of  praise  or  blame  ;  the  other 


84  NOTES  ON  ch.  x. 

marks  the  fact  as  criminal,  and  is  properly  a  term  of  reproach- 
Now  there  is  this  peculiarity  in  the  spirit  of  those  writers,  that, 
when  speaking  in  their  own  character  as  historians,  they  satisfy 
themselves  with  relating  the  bare  facts,  without  eilher  using  such 
terms,  or  affixing  such  epithets,  as  might  serve  to  impres's  their 
readers  with  their  sentiments  concerning  them,  either  of  censure 
or  of  commendation.  They  tell  the  naked  truth,  without  hint- 
ing an  opinion,  and  leave  the  truth  to  speak  for  itself.  They 
have  hit  the  happy  medium,  in  narrative  writing,  that  they  avoid 
equally  the  slightest  appearance,  on  one  hand,  of  coldness  and 
indifference,  and  on  the  other,  of  passion  and  prejudice.  It  was 
said  of  their  Master,  Never  man  spake  like  thin  man.  May  it 
not  be  justly  affirmed  of  these  his  biographers.  Never  men  wrote 
like  these  men?  And  if  their  manner  be  unlike  that  of  other 
men  in  general,  it  is  more  especially  unlike  that  of  fanatics  of  all 
denominations.  Some  may  be  surprized,  after  reading  this  re- 
mark, that  I  have  not  myself  used  the  more  general  expression, 
and  said.  Delivered  him  up.  Had  I  been  the  first  who  render- 
ed the  Gospels  into  Eng.  1  should  certainly  have  so  rendered 
that  passage.  But  the  case  is  totally  different,  now  that  our  ears 
are  inured  to  another  dialect,  especially  as  the  customary  expres- 
sion contains  nothing  but  what  is  strictly  true.  It  is  not  easy 
to  make  so  great  an  alteration,  and  at  the  same  time  preserve  a 
simple  and  unaffected  manner  of  writing,  A  translator,  by  ap- 
pearing to  seek  about  for  an  unusual  term,  may  lose  more  of  the 
genius  of  the  style  in  one  way  than  he  gains  in  another.  There 
is  the  greater  danger  in  regard  to  this  term,  as,  for  the  same  rea- 
son for  which  we  render  it  deliver  up  in  this  passage,  we  ought 
to  translate  it  so  in  every  other,  which  in  some  places,  in  conse- 
quence of  our  early  habits,  would  sound  very  awkwardly.  But 
that  the  manner  of  the  evangelists  may  not  be  in  any  degree  mis- 
taken from  the  version,  I  thought  it  necessary  to  add  this  note. 
Diss.  III.  §  23. 

5.  A  Samaritan  city^  ttoXiv  llxf^xpiiTm.  Vul.  civitates  Sama. 
ritanorum  in  the  plural.  This  reading  has  no  support  from  MSS. 
or  versions. 

8.  In  the  common  Gr.  copies,  vsycpsi  iyu^ere,  raise  the  dead,  is 
found  immediately  after  MTrpm  KaBcu^i^eri.  But,  it  is  wanting  in 
a  great  number  of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  in  the  com.  polyglot, 
and  in  the  Arm.  and  Eth.  versions.     And,  though  it  is  retained 


GH.  X.  S.  MATTHEW.  85 

in  the  Sy.  and  also  in  the  Vul.  where  it  is  transposed,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  Jerom  did  not  find  it  in  any  of  his  best  MSS.  as  he  has 
omitted  it  totally  in  his  Commentary,  where  every  other  clause 
of  the  sentence  is  specially  taken  notice  of.  Neither  did  Chr. 
Euth.  or  Theo.  find  it  in  the  copies  used  by  them.  There  is  this 
further  evidence  against  it,  that  it  is  not  mentioned,  either  in  the 
beginning  of  the  chapter,  where  the  powers  conferred  on  the 
Apostles  are  related,  whereof  this,  had  it  been  granted,  must  be 
considered  as  the  principal^  or  iu  the  parallel  passages  of  L. 
where  the  Apostles  are  said  to  have  been  commissioned,  and  to 
have  had  powers  bestowed  on  them.  This  power  they  seem  never 
to  have  received  till  after  the  resurrection  of  their  Lord. 

9.  In  your  girdles.  Their  purses  were  commonly  in  their  gir. 
dies. 

10.  No  scrip,  u.i,  ^yjpa,  ui  i^o,.  E.  T.  No  scrip  for  your  journey. 
I  understand  scrip  to  signify  a  travelling  bag  or  wallet,  and  con. 
sequently  to  answer  to  ?ry,px  m  o^ov.  But  whatever  be  in  this,  the 
words  in  connection  sufficiently  show  the  meaning. 

2  Staves.  The  common  reading  in  Gr.  is  ^u^Sov.  This  is  one  of 
the  few  instances  in  which  our  translators  have  not  scrupled  to 
desert  the  ordinary  editions,  and  say  staves,  notwithstanding  that 
the  Vul.  agrees  with  the  common  Gr.  and  has  virgam.  There  is 
sufficient  ground,  however,  for  preferring  the  other  reading, 
which  is  not  only  well  supported  by  MSS.  some  versions,  and 
old  editions,  and  is  approved  by  Wet.  and  other  critics  ;  but  is 
entirely  conformable  to  those  instructions  as  represented  by  the 
other  Evangelists. 

3  No  spare  coats,  shoes,  or  staves,  f^^e  ho  y^nmu,,  ^,h  Wc 
hf^-ccrcc,  y.y>h  f«/3<J«v.  E.  T.  Neither  tzco  coats,  neither  shoes,  nor 
yet  staves.  I  consider  the  word  §vo  as  equally  belonging  to  all 
the  three  articles  here  conjoined,  coats,  shoes,  and  stav'es."  Now, 
as  it  would  be  absurd  to  represent  it  as  Christ's  order.  Take  not 
with  you  two  shoes;  and  as  the  Heb.  word  rendered  in  the  Sep. 
(>7rc^^,^»rc^  is  Am.  ii.  6.  and  viii.  6.  properly  translated  ajmir  of 
shoes,  being,  according  to  the  Masora,  in  the  dual  number,  I 
have  rendered  the  word  ho  here  spare  ;  (that  is,  such  as  ye  are 
not  using  at  present),  for  by  this  means  I  both  avoid  the  impro- 
priety, and  exactly  hit  the  sense  in  them  all. 

VOL.   IV.  11 


86  NOTES  ON  cH.x. 

^  Of  his  maintenance,  rm  rpo^r^i  ccvra.  E.  T.  Of  his  meat.  But 
the  three  particulars  last  mentioned,  coat,  staff,  and  shoes,  are 
surely  not  meat,  in  any  sense  of  the  word.  This,  if  there  were 
no  other  argument,  sufficiently  shews,  that  our  Lord  included 
more  under  the  term  'rpo(pti  than  food.  He  prohibits  them  from 
incumbering  themselves  with  any  articles  of  raiment,  beside  what 
they  were  wearing,  or  with  money  to  purchase  more,  when  these 
should  be  worn  out.  Wliy  ?  Because  they  would  be  entitled  to 
a  supply  from  those  on  whom  their  labours  would  be  bestowed, 
and  money  would  be  but  an  incumbrance  to  them.  The  word 
is  used  by  a  synecdoche,  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  Oriental  idi- 
om, which  sometimes  makes  the  term  bread  denote  every  thing 
necessary  for  subsistence.  Sc.  has  shown  that  this  interpreta- 
tion of  rpotpii  is  not  unsupported  by  classical  authority. 

-  12.  The  Vul.  subjoins  to  this  verse,  Dicentes,  Pax  huic  do.. 
mui.  Saying,  Peace  be  to  this  house.  The  corresponding  words 
in  Gr.  are  found  in  some  MSS.  but  not  in  so  many  as  to  give  any 
countenance  for  relinquishing  the  common  reading,  which  agrees 
with  the  Sy.  and  the  greater  number  of  ancient  versions  ;  more 
especially,  as  some  editions  of  the  Vul.  omit  these  words,  and  as 
the  connection  is  complete  without  them.  There  is  ground  to 
think,  that  such  corrections  have  sometimes  arisen  from  an  ill- 
judged  zeal  in  transcribers,  to  render  the  Gospels  more  confor- 
mable to  one  another.  That  the  common  Jewish  salutation  was, 
Peace  be  to  this  house,  is  well  known.  I  have,  therefore,  for 
the  greater  perspicuity,  rendered  >]'  e;^)jv»}  {>(amv,  in  the  13th  verse, 
the  peace  ye  wish  them.  This,  at  the  same  time  that  it  gives  ex- 
actly the  sense,  renders  the  addition  to  the  12th  verse  quite  unne- 
cessary. 

14.  Shake  the  dust  off  your  feet.  It  was  maintained  by  the 
scribes,  that  the  very  dust  of  a  heathen  country  polluted  their 
land,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  brought  into  it.  Our  Lord 
here,  adopting  their  language,  requires  his  disciples,  by  this  ac- 
tion, to  signify  that  those  Jewish  cities  which  rejected  their  doc. 
trine,  deserved  a  regard  noway  superior  to  that  which  they  them- 
selves showed  to  the  cities  of  Pagans.  It  is  added  in  the  gos- 
pels of  Mr.  and  L.  ag  /^cct^rvpiov,  for  a  testimony,  that  is,  not  a  de-^ 
nunciation  of  judgments,  but  a  public  and  solemn  protestation 
against  them. 

18.  To  bear  testimony  to  them,  m  i^eeprvptcv  ccvtok;.  Mr.  xiii.  9.N. 


cj£.  X.  S.  MATTHEW.  87 

20.  It  shaUnot  he  ye bui The  meaning  is,  //  sliuU  not 

be  ye  so  much  as Ch.  ix.  13.     ^  Note. 

23.  When  they  persecute  you  in  one  city^  oTctv  ho)y,ea7-tv  iiy^xii  a 
T-,}  TFoXti  Totvr>i.  Two  or  three  copies,  none  of  the  most  esteemed, 
read  ex,  rjj^  -jroXeox;  rccvrm.  Chr.  and  Orig.  also,  found  this  read- 
ing in  those  used  by  them.  But  neither  the  author  of  the  Vul. 
nor  any  ancient  translator,  appears  to  have  read  so.  Had  there 
been  ground  for  admitting  this  reading,  the  proper  translation 
would  have  been,  JVhenthey  banish  you  out  of  one  city. 

2  Another.     Ch.  xxvii.  61.  N. 

^  Ye  shall  not  have  gone  through  the  cities  of  Israel,  a  vm  rt~ 
Asnire  to?  voXm  t»  IrpxriX.  Be.  Nequaquam  obieritis  urbes  Is- 
raelis. The  late  learned  Bishop  Pearce  objects  to  this  version 
that,  though  reXetv  diJov,  and  tsAe/v  alone  ('e,$ov  being  understood), 
are  used  for  accomplishing  a  journey  ;  he  had  seen  no  example 
of  T£Ae<v  woA£<s,  for  going  over,  or  travelling  through,  towns.  It 
is  sufficient  to  answer,  that  we  have  seen  no  example  of  his  sense 
of  the  word,  adapted  to  the  phrase  here  used  ;  for  rcAs/v  f^vr/i^ix,^ 
and  riXiiv  rivt  cfxappr,rcc,  are  at  least  as  dissimilar  to  TiA£<v  xoA(v,  as 
TeAe/v  aJ'«v  is.  Besides,  there  is  nothing  in  the  scriptural  style 
resembling  that  of  the  Pagans,  when  speaking  of  what  they  call- 
ed their  mysteries;  though  I  acknowledge  that  a  great  deal  of 
this  sort  is  to  be  found  in  the  ecclesiastical  w  riters  of  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries,  who  affected  to  accommodate  the  Pagan  phra. 
seology  to  the  Christian  doctrine  and  worship,  which  they  not  a 
a  little  corrupted  thereby.  But  nothing  serves  more  strongly  to 
evince,  that  the  sense  which  Be.  has  given  to  the  words  is  the  na- 
tural and  obvious  sense,  than  the  manner  in  which  Chr.  explains 
this  passage.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  discovered,  that  the  word 
T£Ae<v,  joined  with  ^oA(v,  had  any  thing  either  difficult  or  uncom- 
mon in  it ;  but  observing  the  encouragement  given  to  the  Apos. 
ties  in  the  promise,  he  thus  expresses  in  his  own  words,  as  is 
usual  with  him,  the  import  of  it,  a  (p6ot.(reTe  7r!^ic>So\Tii;  r;jv  Uu.>,xtr(- 
y£v.  Ye  shall  not  have  finished  your  travelling  through  Pales. 
tine.  I  shall  only  add,  that  the  word  consumtnabi/is,  used  by 
the  Vul.  is  rather  ambiguous,  and  maybe  differently  interpreted, 
Er.  Zu.  and  Cal.  who  say  perambulaveritis,  perfectly  agree  in 
sense  with  Be.  So,  I  imagine,  does  Cas.  though  he  uses  the  more 
indefinite  and  less  proper  term,  perlustraveritis. 


88  NOTES  ON  cm.  x. 

25.  Beelzebub,  BssA^f/Sj^A.  Vul.  Beelzebub.  In  this  instance, 
our  translators  have  adopted  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  in  prefe- 
rence to  that  of  the  Gr.  With  the  Vul.  agree  the  Sy.  Eth.  and 
Ara.  versions.  It  is  remarkable,  that  there  is  no  variation  in  the 
Gr.  MSS.  all  of  which  make  the  viord  terminate  in  A,  not  in  /3, 
All  the  learned  seem  to  be  agreed,  that  Beelzebub  was  the  Ori- 
ental name.  It  were  superfluous  to  examine  the  conjectures  of 
critics  on  this  subject.  The  obvious  reason  of  this  change  ap- 
pears io  be  that  assigned  by  Gro.  No  Gr.  word  ends  in  /3  ;  and 
those  who  wrote  in  that  language,  in  order  to  accommodate 
themselves  to  the  pronunciation  of  the  people  who  spoke  it,  were 
accustomed  to  make  some  alterations  on  foreign  names.  Thus, 
Sennacherib  is  in  the  Sep.  'Zincfx/'^^iuu. ;  and  Ilabakkuk,  for  a  like 
reason,  is  Af^^xy.Hf^.  On  how  many  of  the  Heb.  names  of  the  O 
T.  is  a  much  greater  change  made  in  the  N.  in  regard  to  which 
we  find  no  different  reading  in  the  MSS.  ?  I  suppose,  however, 
that  the  reason  of  the  preference  given  by  our  translators,  wa5 
not  because  the  sound  was  more  conformable  to  the  Oriental 
word,  a  thing  of  no  consequence  to  us,  but  because,  through  the 
universal  use  of  the  Vul.  before  the  Reformation,  men  were  ac- 
customed to  the  one  name,  and  strangers  to  the  other.  The  word 
Beelzebub  means  the  Lord  ofjlies.  It  is  thought  to  be  the  name 
of  some  Syrian  idol,  but  whether  given  by  the  worshippers  them- 
selves, or,  as  was  not  unusual,  by  the  Jews  in  contempt,  is  to  us 
matter  only  of  conjecture. 

26.  Therefore,  fear  them  not.  M?;  av  <po[i)j^rB  uvrm;'  Dr.  Sy- 
monds  asks  (p.  74)  "  Could  our  Saviour  mean,  that  the  reason 
"  why  his  apostles  had  no  just  grounds  of  fear,  was  because  they 
"  were  sure  to  meet  with  barbarous  treatment  ?"  I  answer,  '  No ; 
'  but  because  they  could  meet  with  no  treatment,  however  bad, 
'  which  he  had  not  borne  before,  and  which  they  had  not  been 
'  warned,  and  should  therefore  be  prepared,  to  expect.  This 
'  meaning  results  more  naturally  from  the  scope  of  the  place, 
'  than  that  given  by  him.' 

27.  Fro7n  the  house-tops.     Their  houses  were  all  flat.roofed. 
29.  A  penny.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

31'.  Ye  are  much  more  valuable  than  sparrows,  v6>Xm  g-pK^iav 
.Siu<p£pers  li^eti.  E.  T.  Ve  are  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows. 
One  MS.  and  the  Com.  read  x«AA<a  for  xoAAwv.     This,  I  acknow« 


cH.  X.  S.  MATTHEW  89 

ledge,  is  of  no  weight  The  same  sense  is  conveyed  either  way, 
Cas.  Longe  passeribus  antecellitis  vos.  This  expression  is  more 
conformable  to  modern  idioms. 

34.  /  came  not  to  brmg  peace^  but  a  sword,   i     An  energetic 

35.  /  am  come  to  make  dissension.  )  mode  of  ex- 
pressing the  certainty  of  a  foreseen  consequence  of  any  measure, 
by  representing  it  as  the  purpose  for  which  the  measure  was 
adopted.  This  idiom  is  familiar  to  the  Orientals,  and  not  un- 
frequent  in  other  authors,  especially  poets  and  orators. 

38.  He  who  will  not  take  his  cross  and  follozo  me.  Every 
one  condemned  by  the  Romans  to  crucifixion,  was  compelled  to 
carry  the  cross  on  which  he  was  to  be  suspended,  to  the  place  of 
execution.  In  this  manner  our  Lord  himself  was  treated.  Pro- 
perly, it  was  not  the  whole  cross  that  was  carried  by  the  convict, 
but  the  cross-beam.  The  whole  was  more  than  suited  the  natu- 
ral strength  of  a  man  to  carry.  The  perpendicular  part  proba- 
bly remained  in  the  ground;  the  transverse  beam  (here  called  the 
cross)  was  added,  when  thv^re  was  an  execution.  As  this  was 
not  a  Jewish  but  a  Roman  punishment,  the  mention  of  it  on  this 
occasion  nip.y  justly  be  looked  on  as  the  first  hint  given  by  Jesus 
of  the  death  he  was  to  suffer.  If  it  had  been  usual  in  the  country 
to  execute  crimi'ials  in  this  manner,  the  expression  might  have 
Jbeen  thought  proverbial,  for  denoting  to  prepare  for  the  worst. 

39.  He  who  preserveth  his  life  shall  lose  it.  There  is  in  this 
sentence  a  kind  of  paronomasia,  whereby  the  same  word  is  used 
in  different  senses,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  convey  the  sentiment 
with  greater  energy  to  the  attentive,  '  He  who,  by  making  a 
'  sacrifice  of  his  duty,  preserves  temporal  life,  shall  lose  eternal 
*  life  ;  and  contrariwise.'  The  like  trope  our  Lord  employs  in  that 
expression,  ch.  viii.  22.  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead.  Let 
the  spiritually  dead  bury  the  naturally  dead.  See  also  ch.  xiii. 
12.  In  the  present  instance,  the  trope  has  a  beauty  in  the  ori- 
ginal, which  we  cannot  give  it  in  a  version.  The  word  •^vpc>i  is 
equivocal,  signifying  both  life  and  souly  and  consequently  is 
much  better  fitted  for  exhibiting  with  entire  perspicuity,  the  two 
meanings,  than  the  Eng.  word  life.  The  Syro-Chaldaic,  which 
was  the  language  then  spoken  in  Palestinej  had,  in  this  respect, 
the  same  advantage  with  the  Gr. 


90  ■     NOTES  ON 


CHAPTER  XL 


CH.  XI. 


1.  Give  warning.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2,  &c. 

^  In  the  cities^  ev  rxi^  TroXea-iv  uvrm.  E.  T.  In  their  cities.  It  is 
not  uncommon  in  the  Oriental  dialects,  to  employ  a  pronoun 
where  the  antecedent,  to  which  it  refers,  is  not  expressed,  but  un- 
derstood. In  this  way  ccvrav  is  here  used  ;  for  it  must  refer  to 
the  Galileans,  in  whose  country  they  then  were.  But  as  the 
pronoun  is  not  necessary  in  Eng.  and  as  in  our  ears  it  would  ap. 
pear  to  refer  to  disciples,  and  so  might  mislead,  it  is  better 
omitted. 

2.  Of  the  Messiah,  th  Xpi^-a.  A  few  MSS.  and  the  Eth.  ver. 
3ion,  read  m  itj/ya.  It  is  not  in  itself  improbable,  that  this  is  the 
true  reading,  though  too  weakly  supported  to  authorize  an  altera, 
tion  in  the  text.  Ijjo-y?,  Kvpi(^,  ©£^,  and  X^*?-©-^  having  been 
anciently  almost  always  written  by  contraction,  were  more  liable 
to  he  mistaken  than  other  words.  If,  however,  the  common 
reading  be  just,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked,  that  the  word  Xpire? 
is  never,  when  alone,  and  with  the  article,  used  in  the  Gospels, 
as  a  proper  name.  It  is  the  name  of  an  office.  The  import  of 
the  expression  must  therefore  be,  '  When  John  had  heard  that 
'  those  works  were  performed  by  Jesus,  which  are  characteristi- 
*  cal  of  the  Messiah,  he  sent.'     Diss.  V.  P.  IV.  §  6—9. 

3.  He  that  cometh,  i  e^xof^-^^o'^'  I^-  T.  He  that  should  come. 
I  thought  it  better  to  render  this  literally,  because  it  is  one  of  the 
titles  by  which  the  Messiah  was  distinguished.  It  answers  in 
Or.  to  the  Heb.  Nan  haba,  taken  from  Psal.  cxviii.  26.  where  he 
is  denominated,  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  The 
beginning  of  a  description,  is  usually  employed  to  suggest  the 
whole.  Indeed  the  whole  is  applied  to  him,  ch.  xxi.  9,  Mr.  xi. 
9.  L.  xix.  38.  J.  xii.  13.  and  sometimes  the  abbreviation,  as  here, 
and  in  J.  vi.  14.  Heb.  x.37.  o  ip^of^evoi  seems  to  have  been  a  title 
as  much  appropriated  as  «  X^/r«5,  and  o  6ioi  m  Ax^i^. 

5.  Good  news  is  brought.     Dj^s.  V.  P.  II. 

6.  To  whom  I  shall  not  prove  a  stumbling-blacky  o'j  icm  f^ 
cnm^»Xtir%  a  cf^ai.     Ch.  V.  29.  N. 


sp.  XI.  ^.  MATTHEW.  91 

7.  A  reed  shaken  by  the  wind?  A  proverbial  expression  ;  im» 
plying,  '  It  is  surely  not  for  any  trifling  matter  that  ye  have  gone 
'thither.' 

8.  Av5^»5r«v  EV  iMiXocMii  If^xTtoti  ii(/JpUG-(^iV9V — 01  TO,  i^MXetftoc  (papal- 
rti—lt  was  observed  (Diss.  X.  P.  V.  §  2.)  that,  when  a  particu- 
lar  species  was  denoted  by  an  adjective  added  to  the  general 
name,  the  article,  on  occasion  of  repeating  the  name,  is  made  to 
supply  the  place  of  the  adjective  ;  but  here  we  have  an  example 
wherein  on  rejecting  the  adjective,  the  substantive  is  supplied 
by  prefixing  the  article  m  fA.xXxx.ci  for  y.xX!tx.x,  'ifA.xTtx.  There  is 
evidently,  therefore,  neither  redundancy  nor  impropriety  in  using 
the  article  here,  as  some  have  vainly  imagined.  Either  it  or  the 
repetition  of  the  noun  was  necessary,  in  point  of  precision. 

10.  Angel.  Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  9,  &c. 

12.  Invaded.  The  comparison  is  here  to  a  country  invaded 
and  conquered,  or  to  a  city  besieged  and  taken  by  storm. 

13.  Were  your  instruciers,  Trpotcpiirevc-uv.     Ch.  vii.  15.  N. 

15.  Whoever  hath  ears,  &c.     Diss,  II.  P.  III.  §  5. 

16.  In  the  market-place^  ev  xyopxii;.  E.  T.  In  the  markets. 
But  a  great  number  of  MSS.  as  well  as  the  Vul.  Go.  and  Sy.  ver- 
sions, have  the  word  in  the  singular.  The  passage  was  also  read 
thus  by  some  of  the  ancient  expositors.  Moreover,  the  reading 
itself  appears  preferable. 

17.  We  have  sung  mournful  songs^  £5fj)Vjj(r«;M.ev.  E.  T.  We 
have  mourned.  But  mourning  and  lamenting  are  nearly  synony- 
mous. Hence  that  indistinctness  in  the  E.  T.  which  makes  a 
reader  at  a  loss  to  know  what  those  children  wanted  of  their 
companions.  If  it  was  to  join  them  in  mourning,  it  would  have 
been  more  natural  to  retain  the  word,  and  say.  But  ye  have  not 
mourned  with  us.  There  are  other  reasons  which  render  this 
supposition  improbable.  One  is,  the  former  member  of  the  sen- 
tence shows,  that  it  was  one  part  which  one  of  the  sets  of  boys 
had  to  play,  and  another  that  was  expected  from  the  other.  A 
second  reason  is,  the  similarity  of  the  construction  in  the  cor- 
responding clauses,  and  the  difference  in  the  contrasted  ;  iivXsjFei- 
iA,iv  ufA.iv. — «5jo;}VJ)er«M,£w  uf^JV,  on  one  side,  and  Hk  jy/);^j}5-«5-3-e, — UK  exo- 

-^xT^B  on  the  other.     These  things  add  a  great  degree  of  proba- 


92  NOTES  ON  ch.  xv 

bilitytothe  vprsion  I  have  given,  after  Er.  and  Cal.  who  say 
lugubria  cecinimiis  ;  Dio.  G.  F.  and  L.  Cl.  who  render  the  words 
in  the  san)e  way,  and  Hey.  who  says,  sung  mournful  tunes.  But 
what  puts  it,  with  me,  beyond  a  doubt,  is,  to  find  that  the  Seventy 
use  B-pmoi  for  elegy^  or  song  of  lamentation .,  and  S-^iimv  for  to 
si7ig  such  a  song.  See  2  Sam.  i.  17.  For  that  the  lamentation 
there  following  is  a  song  or  poem,  is  evident  from  its  structure. 
See  also  the  preamble  in  the  Sep.  to  the  book  of  Lamentations, 
where  the  song  which  immediately  follows,  composed  alphabeti- 
cally in  tlie  manner  of  some  of  the  Psalms,  is  denominated  S'pijvog, 
as  indeed  are  all  the  other  poems  of  that  book.  That  the  Jews 
used  such  melancholy  music,  sometimes  instrumental,  sometimes 
vocal,  at  funerals,  and  on  other  calamitous  occasions,  appears 
from  several  passages  of  Scripture.  In  Jeremiah's  time,  they 
had  women  whose  occupation  it  was  to  sing  them,  Jer.  ix.  17. 
They  are  called  in  the  Sep.  S-ptivsa-xi.  The  word  is  weakly  ren- 
dered in  our  version  the  mourning  women  ;  much  better  by  Cas. 
proeficas^  women  who,  in  melodious  strains,  gave  vent  to  their 
lamentations.  For  those  who  know  the  power  of  music  in  con- 
junction with  poetry  will  admit  that  these,  by  a  wonderful  charm, 
soothe,  at  the  same  time  that  they  excite,  the  sorrow  of  the 
hearers.  The  words  which  follow  in  v.  18.  render  the  justness  of 
this  interpretation  still  more  evident.  They  are  thus  translated 
by  Houbigant,  Ut  cito  edant  in  nobis  cantus  lugubres-,  ut  la~ 
chrymas  effundant  oculi  nostri,  &c.  And  in  regard  to  the  sense, 
not  much  differently  by  Cas.  Quos  nceniam  de  nobis  editum  pro. 
pere  veniant  ;  profundantque  oculi  nostri  lacrymas^  &c.  In  v. 
20.  which  in  our  version  is  unintelligible  (for  how  mere  wailing, 
artificially  taught,  could  gratify  a  person  in  real  grief,  is  beyond 
comprehension),  the  difficulty  is  entirely  removed  by  a  right 
translation.  Houbigant,  Instituite  ad  lamentum  filias  vestras, 
suam  quceque  sodalem  ad  cantus  lugubres.  Cas.  to  the  same 
purpose,  Filias  vestras  nceniam,  et  alias  alia;  lamentationem 
docete.  In  classical  use  also  S-^fjvetv  has  often  the  same  significa- 
tion,  and  answers  to  nosniam  edere.  Neenia,  says  Festus,  est 
carmen  quodinfunere,  laudandi  gratia,  cantatur  ad  tibiam. 

19.  Wisdom  is  justijied.     L.  vii.  35.  N. 

20.  Began  to  reproach,  3;/>|««t«  omh^m.     Mr.  v.  17.  N, 


CH.  XI.  S.  MATTHEW.  93 

21.   JVo  unto  thee  Chorazin.     L.  vi.  24.  N. 

"^  In  sackcloth  and  ashes ;  that  is,  'the  deepest  contrition  and 
'  sorrow.'  Sackcloth  and  ashes  were  the  outward  signs  of  pent- 
tence  in  those  days. 

23.  Which  hast  been  exalted  to  heaven^  ^  iu<;  ra  apotva  u-^a. 
eeio-M.  Vul.  Numquid  usque  in  caelum  exaltabcris?  The  Cop. 
and  the  Eth.  versions  read  in  the  same  manner.  In  conformity 
to  these,  we  find  in  a  very  few  Gr.  MSS.  /mj  tu^  m  evpctvov  {/■^u. 

=  Hades.     Diss,  VI.  P.  II.  §  2,  Sfc, 

25.  /  adore  thee,  e%<tfMXoyov(^M  c-oi.  E.  T.  /  thank  thee.  The 
word  sometimes  denotes,  to  confess  sins,  sometimes  to  acknow- 
ledge favours,  and  sometimes  also  to  adore  or  celebrate.  It  is 
in  the  last  of  these  senses  I  understand  the  word  here.  The  na- 
ture of  the  sentiment  makes  this  probable.  But  the  reason  as- 
signed, V.  26.  removes  all  doubt,  Ves,  Father,  because  such  is 
thy  pleasure.  '  Every  thing  in  which  I  discover  thy  will,  I  re- 
*  ceive,  not  with  acquiescence  barely,  but  with  veneration.' 

^  Having  hidden  these  things, — thou  hast  revealed  them, 
ctTTBicpvi^otg  Txvrci,——x.xt  ct7r£KdXv<ptiii  xvrx.  E.  T.  Thou  hast  hid 
these  things, — and  hast  revealed  them.  We  have  the  same  idiom, 
Rom.  vi,  17.  God  be  thanked  that  ye  zcere  the  servants  of  sin, 
but  ye  have  obeyed;  the  thanks  are  not  given  for  their  having 
been  formerly  the  servants  of  sin,  but  for  their  being  then  obe- 
dient, Is.  xii.  I.  rendered  literally  from  the  Ileb.  is,  Lord,  I zcill 
praise  thee,  because  thou  zsast  angry  zcith  me,  thine  anger  is 
turned  away.  In  interpreting  this,  our  translators  have  not  been 
so  scrupulous,  but  have  rendered  the  middle  clause,  though  thou 
wast  angry  zsith  me.  I  know  not  why  they  have  not  followed 
the  same.method  here.  Having  hidden  implies  barely,  not  hav. 
ing  revealed,  Mr.  iii.  4.  N. 

^  From  sages  and  the  learned,  cctto  <ro(pm  xxt  o-weruv.  E.  T. 
From  the  wise  and  prudent.  So^^a?,  as  used  by  the  Evangelists, 
must  be  understood  as  equivalent  to  the  Ileb.  asn  hacham,  which, 
from  signifying  wise  in  the  proper  sense,  came,  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  academics  in  the  country,  often  to  denote  those  who 
had  the  superintendency  of  these  seminaries,  or  a  principal  part 
in  teaching.  It  seems  also  to  have  been  used  almost  synony- 
mously with  scribe  ;  so  that  in  every  view  it  suggests  rather  the 

VOL.  IV.  12 


94  NOTES  ON  cu.  xii. 

literary  honours  a  man  has  attained,  than  the  wisdom  of  which 
he  is  possessed.  2m£to5  answers  to  the  Heb.  word  jiai  nabon, 
which  is  more  properly  intelligent  or  learned  than  prudent; 
and  both  refer  more  to  the  knowledge  acquired  by  study  and  ap- 
plication, than  to  what  arises  from  experience  and  a  good  under- 
standing. Accordingly  they  are  here  contrasted  not  with  jnw^o*?, 
fools,  but  with  viiTTioii,  babes,  persons  illiterate,  whose  minds  had 
not  been  cultivated  in  the  schools  of  the  rabbies. 

29.  Be  taught  by  me,  fi.'x6ire  «7r'  ei^^ov.  E.  T.  Learn  of  me. 
The  phrase  in  Eng.  is  commonly  understood  to  signify,  Folloic 
my  example.  But  this  does  not  express  the  full  import,  uhich 
is,  Be  my  disciples,  be  taught  by  me,  and  is  explanatory  of  the 
first  order,  Take  my  yoke  upon  you.  See  J.  vi.  45.  where  being 
taught  of  God,  and  learning  of  the  Father,  are  used  as  synony- 
mous. 

^  Condescending,  rxTreive^  tj?  Kccp^ix.  E.  T.  Loidy  in  heart. 
I  think,  with  Eisner,  that  our  Lord's  direct  aim  in  this  address 
is  not  to  recommend  these  virtues  in  him  to  the  imitation  of  the 
people,  but  himself  to  their  choice  as  a  teacher.  The  whole  is 
to  be  explained  therefore  as  having  a  view  to  this  end.  '  Be  in- 
'  structed  by  me,  whom  ye  will  find  a  meek  and  condescending 
^  teacher,  not  rough,  haughty,  and  impatient,  but  one  who  can 
'  bear  with  the  infirmities  of  the  weak  ;  and  who,  more  desirous 
*  to  edify  others  than  to  please  himself,  will  not  disdain  to  adapt 
'  his  lessons  to  the  capacities  of  the  learners.' 

CHAPTER  XII. 

1.  Began  to  pluck,  Tip^xvro  rtxxetv.     Mr.  V.  17.  N. 

2.  What  it  is  not  lawful.  Plucking  the  ears  of  corn  they  con. 
sidered  as  a  species  of  reaping,  and  consequently  as  servile  work, 
and  not  to  be  done  on  the  Sabbath. 

4.  The  tabernacle,  rot  oixov.  E.  T.  The  house.  The  temple, 
which  is  oftenest  in  Scripture  called  the  house  of  God,  was  not 
then  built.  And  if  the  house  of  the  high  priest  be  here  denomi. 
nated  God''s  house,  as  some  learned  men  have  supposed,  the  ap- 
plication is,  I  suspect,  without  example.  I  think,  therefore, 
it  is  rather  to  be  understood  of  the  tabernacle  formerly  used,  in- 
cluding the  sacred  pavilion,  or  sanctuary,  and  the  court.  These, 
before  the  building  of  the  temple,  we  find  commonly  denominat- 


cH.  xH.  S.  MATTHEW.  95 

ed  the  house  of  God.  Further,  that  it  -svas  not  into  the  holy- 
place  that  David  went,  appears  from  this  circumstance,  the  loaves 
of  which  he  partook  had  been  that  day  removed  from  before  the 
Lord,  and  new  bread  had  been  put  in  their  room,  1  Sam.  xxi.  6. 
For  the  sake  of  perspicuity  therefore,  and  because  we  do  not 
apply  the  word  house  to  such  a  portable  habitation,  I  have 
thought  it  better  to  use  some  general  name,  as  tabernacle  or  man- 
sion, for  under  either  of  these  terms  the  court  or  inclosure  may 
be  also  comprehended. 

^  The  loaves  of  the  presence^  rov^  u^rovi  r;??  TrpoSecreai;.  E.  T. 
The  sheze.bread.  The  Heb.  expression,  rendered  literally,  is 
the  loaves  of  the  face,  or  of  the  presence.  This  I  thought  it 
better  to  restore,  than  to  continue  in  using  a  term  which  con- 
veys an  improper  notion  of  the  thing.  Purver,  whose  version 
I  have  not  seen,  uses,  as  I  am  informed,  the  same  expression. 

5.  Violate  the  rest  to  be  observed  on  sabbaths,  rot<;  c-ctQQxo-iv 
TO  a-xSSctrov  ^e^-ziMvTi.  E.  T.  On  the  sabbath  days  profane  the 
sabbath.  This  looks  oddly,  as  though  the  sabbath  could  be  pro- 
faned on  any  other  day.  Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  Heb.  word 
for  Sabbath  signifies  also  rest,  and  is  used  in  both  senses  in  this 
verse.  The  Evangelist,  or  rather  his  translator  into  Greek, 
though  he  retained  the  original  word,  has,  to  hint  a  diflerence  in 
the  meaning,  made  an  alteration  on  it,  when  introduced  the 
second  time.  Thus  he  uses  o-aQQan,  from  s-«£'o«5,  for  the  day ; 
but  <r*f£'«T(jv  for  the  sabbatical  rest.  If  it  be  asked,  how  the 
priests  violate  the  sabbatical  rest  ?  the  answer  is  obvious,  by 
killing  and  preparing  the  sacrifices,  as  well  as  by  other  pieces  of 
manual  labour  absolutely  necessary  in  performing  the  religious 
service  which  God  had  established  among  them. 

6.  Something  greater,  i^h^ojv.  E.  T.  A  greater.  But  very- 
many  MSS.  and  some  ancient  expositors  read  f^-si^ov.  This  is  also 
more  conformable  to  the  style  in  similar  cases.  See  xi.  9,  and 
in  this  ch.  see  the  note  on  v.  41.  and  42. 

8.  Of  the  sabbath,  kcu  m  c-x^Sxru.  E.  T.  Even  of  the  sabbath. 
The  x.et.1  is  wanting  here  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  in  some 
early  editions,  in  the  Sy.  and  Cop.  versions.  It  seems  not  to  have 
been  read  by  several  ancient  writers,  and  is  rejected  by  Mill  and 
AVetstein,  and  other  critics. 

14.  To  destroy  him,  oTrui  xvtov  U7rs?,!a-aa-i.  E.  T.  Haze  they 
might  destroy  him.     Most  modern  translations,  as  well  as  the 


96  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XII. 


Eng.  have  in  this  followed  the  Vul.  which  says,  Quomodo  per.  . 
derod  eum.  Yet  oss-ui  is  not  commonly  rendered  quomodo  but 
vt.  There  seems  to  be  no  MS.  which  has  7vu<;^  else  I  should  have 
suspected  that  this  had  been  the  reading  in  the  copy  used  by  the 
La.  translator.  It  is  true  that  osrw?  answers  sometimes  to  quo. 
modo,  as  well  as  to  ut ;  but  it  is  a  good  rule  in  translating,  always 
to  prefer  the  usual  signification,  unless  it  would  imply  something 
absurd,  or  at  least  unsuitable  to  the  scope  of  the  place.  Neither 
of  these  is  the  case  here.  If  there  be  any  difference,  the  ordinary 
acceptation  is  the  preferable  one.  This  is  the  first  time  that 
mention  is  made  of  a  design  on  our  Saviour's  life.  It  is  natural 
to  think  that  the  historian  would  acquaint  us  of  their  concurring 
in  the  design,  before  he  would  speak  of  their  consulting  about 
the  means.  The  explanations  given  by  the  Greek  Fathers  sup- 
ply, in  some  respects,  an  ancient  version,  as  they  frequently 
give  the  sense  of  the  original  in  other  words.  In  this  passage 
Chr.  renders  oTraq  by  Uot.  ut^  not  by  ^^s  or  ov  rpoTrcv  quomodo. 
H/Vf^QuXivovrcii  ivx  ccveXaTtv  otvrev, 

16.   Evjoinmg  them.     Mr.  ix.  25.  N. 

20.  A  dimly  burning  taper  he  will  not  quench,  Mvcv  Tv(pof^£vov 
a  e-Qes-u.  E.  T.  Smoking  Jlax  shall  he  not  quench.  By  an  easy 
metonymy  the  material  for  the  thing  made,^flx,  is  here  used  for 
the  ■wick  of  a  lamp  or  taper,  and  that  by  a  synecdoche,  for  the 
lamp,  or  taper  itself,  which,  when  near  going  out,  yields  more 
smoke  than  light.  The  Sy.  Ara.  and  Per.  render  it  lamp,  Dio. 
says,  lucignuolo.     See  Lowth's  translation  of  Isaiah,  xlii.  3. 

23.  Is  this  the  son  of  David  ?  f^TjTt  iJrei  eriv  o  biog  A.xQtS ;  E.  T. 
Js  not  this  the  son  of  David?  Vul.  and  Ar.  Numquid  hie  est 
fdius  David?  With  this  agree  in  sense,  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  Pise,  and 
Cas.  only  using  niim,  not  numquid.  Be.  alone  says,  Nonne  iste 
est  fdius  ille  Davidis  ?  And  in  this  he  has  been  followed  by  the 
Eng.  and  some  other  Protestant  translators.  The  Sy.  and  most 
of  the  ancient  versions  agree  with  the  Vul.  Sc.  observes  that 
f^^n  is  not  used  by  Mt.  to  interrogate  negatively.  He  might  have 
added,  nor  by  any  writer  of  the  N.  T.  Nonne  does  not  answer 
to  fMiTi ;  but  man,  or  numquid,  in  Eng.  zchethcr.  Only  let  it  be 
observed,  that  whether  with  us  would  often  be  superfluous,  when 


cH.  xn.  S.  MATTHEW.  97   , 

(HjjT/  in  Gr.  and  nicm  in  La.  would  be  necessary  for  distinguish- 
ing a  question  from  an  affirmation.  See  ch.  vii.  16.  Mr.  iv.  21.  xiv. 
19.  L.  vi.  39.  J.  vii.  31.  viii.22.  xviii.  35.  xxi.  5.  2  Cor.  xii.  18.  In 
any  one  of  these  places,  to  render  it  by  a  negative  would  pervert 
the  sense.  These  are  all  the  places  wherein  it  occurs  in  this  form. 
The  only  other  passage  in  the  N.  T.  where  it  is  found  is  1  Cor. 
vi.  3.  There  it  has  an  additional  particle,  and  is  not  /k,};t{,  but 
fMiTtyB,  used  for  stating  a  comparison,  and  rendered  how  much 
more  ?  This  therefore  cannot  be  called  an  exception.  I  own, 
at  the  same  time,  that  to  say,  Is  this^  or  Is  not  this,  in  a  case  like 
the  present,  makes  little  change  in  the  sense.  Both  express 
doubtfulness,  but  with  this  difference,  that  the  former  seems  to 
imply  that  disbelief,  the  latter  that  belief,  preponderates.  J.  iv. 
29.  N. 

24.  This  man,  sto?.  E,  T.  This  fellow.  Why  did  not  our 
translators  say  in  the  preceding  verse,  /*  not  this  fellow  the  Sou 
of  David?  The  pronoun  is  the  same  in  both.  Our  idiom,  in 
many  cases,  will  not  permit  us  to  use  the  demonstrative,  without 
adding  a  noun.  But  as  the  Gr.  term  does  not  imply,  a  transla- 
tor is  not  entitled  to  add,  any  thing  contemptuous.  By  such 
freedoms,  one  of  the  greatest  beauties  of  these  divine  writers  has 
been  considerably  injured.     Diss.  III.  §  23. 

29.  The  strong  one^s  house.     L.  xi.  21.  N. 

31.  Detraction,  liXcicnpr^f^ict.  Vul.  Blasphemia.  E.  T.  Bias, 
phenuj.  Cas.  Muledictum.  Er.  Zu.  Pise,  and  Cal.  Convitium. 
The  Gr.  word  denotes  injurious  expressions,  or  detraction  in  the 
largest  acceptation,  whether  against  God  or  man.  When  God 
is  the  object,  it  is  properly  rendered  blasphemy.  It  is  evident, 
that  in  this  passage  both  are  included,  as  the  different  kinds  are 
compared  together,  consequently  the  general  term  ought  to  be 
employed,  which  is  applicable  alike  to  both  ;  whereas  the  term 
blasphemy,  with  us,  is  not  used  of  any  verbal  injury  that  is  not 
aimed  directly  against  God.     Diss.  IX.  P.  II. 

^  In  men  is  pardonable,  et(pe.%Fsrcti  roi^  uvd^uTroii.  E.  T.  Shall 
be  forgiven  unto  men.  As  the  Heb.  has  no  subjunctive  or  po- 
tential mood,  the  future  tense  is  frequently  made  use  of,  for  sup- 
plying this  defect.  This  idiom  is  common  in  the  Sep.  and  has 
been  thence  adopted  into  the  N.  T.     It  is  evidently  our  Lord's 


98  NOTES  ON  ch.  xh. 

meaning  here,  not  that  every  such  sin  shall  actually  be  pardon-- 
ed,  but  that  it  is,  in  the  divine  economy,  capable  of  being  par- 
doned, or  is  pardonable.  The  words  in  connection  sufficiently 
secure  this  term  from  being  interpreted  venial^  as  it  sometimes 
denotes.  The  words  remissible  and  irremissible,  would  have 
been  less  equivocal,  but  are  rather  technical  terms,  than  words 
in  common  use. 

^  Against  the  spirit.     Diss.  IX.  P.  II.  §  17. 

32.  In  the  present  state^ — in  the  future^  sv  rovru  ria  xituviy — ev 
ru  f^iXXavTi.  E.  T.  In  this  world^ — in  the  world  to  come.  The 
word  state  seems  to  suit  better  here  than  either  age^  which  some 
prefer,  or  world,  as  in  the  common  version.  Admit,  though  by 
no  means  certain,  that  by  the  two  ct'avei  are  here  meant  the  Jew~ 
ish  dispensation  and  the  Christian.  These  we  cannot  in  Eng. 
call  ages  ;  as  little  can  we  name  them  worlds.  The  latter  im- 
plies too  much,  and  the  former  too  little.  But  they  are  frequent- 
ly and  properly  called  states.  And  as  there  is  an  ambiguity  in 
the  original  (for  the  first  clause  may  mean  the  present  life,  and 
the  second  the  life  that  follows),  the  Eng.  word  state  is  clearly 
susceptible  of  this  interpretation  likewise.  And  though  I  con- 
sider it  as  a  scrupulosity  bordering  on  superstition,  to  preserve 
in  a  version  every  ambiguous  phrase  that  may  be  found  in  the 
original,  where  the  scope  of  the  passage,  or  the  words  in  con- 
struction, sufficiently  ascertain  the  sense;  yet  where  there  is  real 
ground  to  doubt  about  the  meaning,  one  does  not  act  the  part 
of  a  faithful  translator,  who  does  not  endeavour  to  give  the  sen- 
timent in  the  same  latitude  to  his  readers  in  which  the  author 
gave  it  to  him.  This  may  not  always  be  possible  ;  but,  where 
it  is  possible,  it  should  be  done.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  23. 

35.  Out  of  his  good  treasure,  e-A  rov  uyci6ov  ^ncrxv^oO  ty^  Kct^hem;, 
E.  T.  Out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the  heart.  But  the  words  tth 
Kxi'^icti  are  wanting  in  so  many  MSS.  even  those  of  the  greatest 
note,  ancient  versions,  and  commentators,  that  they  cannot  be 
regarded  as  authentic.  Pearce,  through  I  know  not  what  inad- 
vertency, has  said  that  the  word  here  should  be  rendered  treasu.. 
ry.  The  treasury  is  the  place  where  treasure  is  deposited,  which 
may  be  a  very  noble  edifice,  though  all  the  treasure  it  contains 
be  good  for  nothing.  Now  a  man's  producing  good  things  is 
surely  an  evidence  of  the  goodness,  not  of  his  storehouse,  but 
of  his  stores. 


cH,  XII.  S.  MATTHEW.  99 

36.  Pernicious  zoord,  ptii^ce,  xeyev.  E.  T.  Idle  tcord.  Cas. 
Malum  verbum.  The  epithet  apyo^,  when  applied  to  words,  has 
been  shown  by  several  to  denote  pernicious,  false^  calumnious. 
To  this  sense  the  context  naturally  leads.  In  the  primitive  mean- 
ing idle,  it  is  applicable  only  to  persons.  When  it  is  applied 
to  things,  as  the  words  or  actions  of  men,  it' is  understood  to  de- 
note such  in  quality  as  spring  from  habitual  idleness.  And  in 
this  class  the  Jews  were  wont  to  rank  almost  all  the  vices  of  the 
tongue,  particularly  lying  and  defamation.  See  1  Tim.  v.  13. 
Consider  also  the  import  of  the  phrase  yarepe;  xpyai,  in  the  cha- 
racter given  of  the  Cretans,  Tit.  i.  12.  This,  if  we  render  the 
word  otpyoi  as  in  the  text,  is  idle  bellies,  which,  if  we  were  to  in- 
terpret it  by  our  idiom,  ought  to  denote  abstemiousness,  as  in 
the  abstemious  the  belljj  may  be  said  to  be  comparatively  idle  or 
unemployed.  Yet  the  meaning  is  certainly  the  reverse.  The 
author's  idea  is  rather  bellies  of  the  idle,  those  who  spend  their 
time  merely  in  pampering  themselves.  Thus  cruel  hands  are  the 
hands  of  cruel  persons,  an  envious  eye  is  the  eye  of  a  man  or  wo- 
man actuated  by  envy,  a  contemptuous  look  the  look  of  one  who 
cannot  conceal  his  contempt.  From  this  rule  of  interpretation, 
in  such  cases,  I  do  not  know  a  single  exception.  And  by  this 
rule  interpreted  ^nf^aTx  xpyx  is  such  conversation  as  aboundsmost 
with  habitual  idlers.  It  was  not  uncommon  with  the  Jewish 
doctors,  to  make  verba  otii  stand  as  a  contrast  to  verba  verita. 
its,  thus  employing  it  as  a  euphemism  for  falsehood  and  lies.  1 
am  far  from  intending,  by  this  remark,  to  signify  that  what  we 
commonly  call  idle,  that  is  vain  and  unedifying,  icords,  are  not 
sinful,  and  consequently  to  be  brought  into  judgment.  If  these 
be  not  comprehended  in  the  pti(*jx,rx  ctpyx  of  this  passage,  they 
may  be  included  in  the  (Mj^oXoyia,  fooiish  talking,  mentioned  by 
the  Apostle,  Eph.  v.  4. 

37.  Or,  Kxi.  As  both  clauses  in  this  verse  cannot  be  applied 
to  the  same  person,  this  is  one  of  the  cases  wherein  the  copula- 
tive is  properly  rendered  or. 

38.  A  sign  :  that  is,  '  a  miracle  in  proof  of  thy  mission.' 

39.  Adulterous,  /Mix^xMi.  Vul.  Adultera.  "  This  may  be  un- 
•'  derstood,"  says  Si.  "  suitably  to  the  symbolical  phraseology 
''  of  ancient  prophecy,  as  denoting  infidel,  apostate.''''  He  has  ac- 
cordingly, in  his  translation,  rendered  it  infidele.    I  cannot  help 


100  NOTES  ON 


cii.  xiir. 


observing  that,  if  this  had  been  the  rendering  in  the  version  of 
P.  R.  which  here  keeps  the  beaten  road,  and  says  adultere,  we 
should  have  been  told  by  that  critic,  that  the  term  employed  by 
those  interpreters  was  not  a  translation,  but  a  comment,  which 
they  ought  to  have  reserved  for  the  margin.  And  I  must  acknow- 
ledge, that  he  would  have  had,  in  this  place,  more  scope  for  the 
distinction,  than,  in  many  places,  wherein  he  urges  it.  For  it  is 
very  far  from  being  evident  that  our  Saviour  here  adopts  the  al- 
legorical style  of  the  prophets.  Besides,  in  their  style,  it  is  idola. 
try^  and  not  infidelity^  which  in  Jews  is  called  adultery.  And 
with  idolatry  we  do  not  find  them  charged  in  the  N.  T. 

40.  Of  the  great  fish ^  rov  %7)Tovi.  E.  T.  The  whale'' s.  But 
r,jjTe5  is  not  a  whale.,  it  is  a  general  name  for  any  huge  fish,  or  sea 
monster.  It  was  the  word  used  by  i\ie  Seventy^  properly  enough, 
for  rendering  what  was  simply  called,  in  Jonah,  a  great  fish. 

41.  They  zcere  warned  by  Jonah.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2. 

41,  42.  Something  greater^  ttXsiov.  E.  T.  ji  greater.  There 
is  a  modesty  and  a  delicacy  in  the  use  made  of  the  neuter  gender 
in  these  verses,  which  a  translator  ought  not  to  overlook.  Our 
Lord  chooses,  on  this  occasion,  rather  to  insinuate,  than  to  af- 
firm, the  dignity  of  his  character  ;  and  to  afford  matter  of  reflec- 
tion to  the  attentive  amongst  his  disciples,  without  furnishing 
his  declared  enemies  with  a  handle  for  contradiction. 

44.  Furnished,  j6fxoc-^;jjM.ev>jv.  E.  T.  Garnished.  Ko<rf/.su  sig- 
nifies /  adorn,  commonly,  when  applied  to  a  person,  zcith  appa. 
rel,  and  to  a  house,  with  furniture.  This  in  old  Eng.  has  pro. 
bably  been  the  meaning  of  the  word^o  garnish,  agreeably  to  the 
import  of  its  Fr.  etymon,  garnir. 

46.  Brothers.  It  is  almost  too  well  known  to  need  being 
mentioned,  that  in  the  Heb.  idiom  near  relations,  such  as  nephews 
and  cousins,  are  often  styled  brothers.  The  O.  T.  abounds  w  ith 
examples. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

3.  In  parables,  iv  ttx^x^oXxk;.  The  word  TrccpxQoX-i,  as  used  by 
the  Evangelists,  has  all  the  extent  of  signification  in  which  the 
Heb.  ScD  mashal  is  used  in  the  O.  T.     It  not  only  means  what 


eir.  xiH.  S.  MATTHEW.  101 

we  call  parable,  but  also  comparison  of  any  kind,  x\9.y  proverb, 
prediction,  or  any  thing  figuratively  or  poetically  expressed, 
sometimes  any  moral  instruction,  as  L.  xiv.  7.  Our  translators 
have  not  always  rendered  it  parable.  They  call  it  comparison, 
Mr.  iv.  30.  proverb,  L.  iv.  23.  figure,  Heb.  ix.  9.  xi.  19.  They 
have,  however,  retained  the  word  parable  in  several  places, 
where  they  had  as  good  reason  to  change  it  as  in  those  now  men- 
tioned. A  parable,  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  word  in 
Eng.  is  a  species  of  comparison.  It  differs  from  an  example,  in 
which  there  is  properly  no  similitude,  but  an  instance  in  kind. 
Of  this  sort  is  the  story  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  who 
went  up  to  the  temple  to  pray  ;  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus* 
and  of  the  compassionate  Samaritan  ;  also  that  of  the  fool,  w  ho, 
when  his  stores  were  increased,  flattered  himself  that  he  had  a 
security  of  enjoyment  for  many  years.  Nor  is  it  every  sort  of 
comparison.  What  is  taken  entirely  from  still  life  we  should, 
hardly  call  a  parable.  Such  is  the  comparison  of  the  kingdom 
lo  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  and  to  leaven.  Rational  and  active 
life  seems  always  to  enter  into  the  notion.  Further,  the  action 
must  be  feasible,  or  at  least  possible.  Jotham's  fable  of  the 
trees  choosing  a  king,  is  properly  an  apologue;  because,  literal- 
ly understood,  the  thing  is  impossible.  There  is  also  a  diffe- 
rence between  parable  and  allegory.  In  allegor^j  (which  is  no 
ether  than  a  lesson  delivered  in  metaphor)  every  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal words  has,  through  the  whole,  two  meanings,  the  literal 
and  the  figurative.  Whatever  is  advanced  should  be  pertinent, 
understood  either  way.  The  allegory  is  always  imperfect  where 
this  does  not  hold,  it  is  not  so  in  parable,  where  the  scope  is 
chiefly  regarded,  and  not  the  words  taken  severally.  That  there 
be  a  resemblance  in  the  principal  incidents  is  all  that  is  required. 
Smaller  matters  are  considered  only  as  a  sort  of  drapery.  Thus, 
in  the  parable  of  (he  prodigal,  all  the  characters  and  chief  inci- 
dents are  significant,  and  can  scarcely  be  misunderstood  by  an 
attentive  reader ;  but  to  attempt  to  assign  a  separate  meaning  to 
the  best  robe,  and  the  ring,  and  fhe  shoes,  and  the  fatted  calf, 
and  the  music,  and  the  dancing,  betrays  great  want  of  judg- 
ment, as  well  as  puerility  of  fancy.  In  those  instructions  of  our 
Lord,  promiscuously  termed  p«r«6/es,  there  are  specimens  of  all 
the  different  kinds  above  mentioned,  apologue  alone  excepted. 
T-et  it  be  observed,  that  it  matters  not  whether  the  relation  itself 
roL.  IV.  13 


102  NOTES  ON  cH.  xm. 

be  true  history  or  fiction.     The  truth  of  the  parable  lies  in  the. 
justness  of  the  application. 

4.  The  sower,  o  c-Trapm.  E.  T.  A  sower.  The  article  here 
is,  in  my  opinion,  not  without  design,  as  it  suggests  that  the  ap. 
plication  is  eminently  to  one  individual. 

5.  Rocky  ground,  ra,  Trcr^aSi).  E.  T.  Stony  places.  But  this 
does  not  express  the  sense.  There  may  be  many  loose  stones, 
from  which  the  place  would  properly  be  denominated  stony, 
Avhere  the  soil  is  both  rich  and  deep.  What  is  meant  here  is  evi- 
dently continued  rock,  with  a  very  thin  cover  of  earth. 

9.   Whoever  hath  ears.     Diss.  II.  P.  III.  §  5. 

1 1 .  The  secrets,  rot,  /n-vi-tj^ix,  E.  T.  The  mysteries.  That  the 
common  signification  of  f^vrtipta  is,  as  rendered  by  Cas.  arcana, 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  Diss.  IX.  P.  I.  The  moral  truths  here 
alluded  to,  and  displayed  in  the  explanation  of  the  parable,  are 
as  far  from  being  mysteries,  in  the  common  acceptation,  doc- 
trines incomprehensible,  as  any  thing  in  the  world  can  be. 

12.  To  him  that  hath.     Mr.  iv.  24,  23.  N. 

14.  Is  fulfilled,  mofTc-Mparui.  I  am  not  positive  that  the  com- 
pound verb  maTirXi^pou  means  more  than  the  simple  ttM^ou,  which, 
for  a  reason  assigned  above  (note  on  ch.  i.  22.),  I  commonly 
translate  verify.  But  as  the  word  here  is  particular,  and  not 
used  in  any  other  passage  of  the  Gospels,  and  as  «voe  in  composi- 
tion is  sometimes  what  grammarians  call  intensive,  I  have  imi- 
tated the  Evangelist  in  changing  the  word.  Though  it  is  evi- 
dent, from  the  passage  in  Isaiah,  that  the  character  quoted  was 
that  of  the  people  in  the  prophet's  time;  we  have  reason  to 
think  that  there  must  have  been  in  the  description  a  special  view 
to  the  age  of  the  Messiah,  which  the  obduracy  of  Isaiah's  contem. 
poraries  was  exhibited  chiefly  to  prefigure;  for,  of  all  the  pas. 
sages  in  the  O.  T.  relating  to  these  events,  this  is  that  which  is 
the  oftenest  quoted  in  the  New. 

15.  Understanding,  Kd^S IX.     Diss.  IV.  §23. 

16.  Blessed,  y.ot,iccc^iot.  Though  I  commonly  render  this  word 
happy,  to  distinguish  it  from  tvXo'y^r(^,  I  do  not  think  the  ap- 
plication of  the  word  happy  in  this  verse  would  suit  the  Eng. 
idiom. 


CH.  xiii.  S.  MATTHEW.  103 

19,  Mindeth  it  not,  (mi  o-vmyr®-'.  E.  T.  Under siandeth  it  not. 
Be.  and  Pise.  Non  atlendit.  Beau.  Ne  la  goute  point,  P.  R. 
and  Sa.  N''i/  fait  point  d^  attention.  That  the  verb  a-vvty,f^t  fre 
quently  means,  both  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  N.  T.  to  mind^to  re- 
gard,  to  attend  to,  is  unquestionable.  See  Ps.  xli.  1.  cvi.  7. 
Prov.  xxi.  12.  Rom.  iii.  11.  In  two  of  these  passages  the  com- 
mon  translation  has  considereth  ;  and  though  the  verb  under- 
stand is  used  in  the  other  two,  the  context  makes  it  manifest, 
that  the  meaning  is  the  same.  In  the  passage  under  review,  An, 
Hey.  Wes.  use  the  verb  consider  ;  Wor.  and  Wa.  regard.  This 
remark  affects  also  v.  13, 

1 9,  &c.  That  which  fell,  &c.  o  tttx^ii?.  E.  T.  He  zohich  re. 
ceived  seed.  I  agree  with  Ham.  in  thinking  that  'o  o-jtojC^,  the 
seed,  a  word  in  common  use  both  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  N.  T. 
is  here  understood.  It  is  this  which  alone  can  be  said  to  be  sown, 
and  not  the  persons  who  are  figured  by  the  different  soils.  In 
the  other  way  of  explaining  it,  there  is  such  a  jumble  of  the  lite- 
ral sense  and  of  the  figurative,  as  presents  no  image  to  the  mind, 
and  is  unexampled  in  holy  writ. 

^  Efi,  in  such  cases,  is  properly  rendered  denotes. 

21.  He  relapseth,  (rxxv^uXK^erxi.  E.  T.  He  is  offended.  For 
the  general  import  of  the  Gr.  word,  see  the  note  on  ch.  v.  29. 
The  precise  meaning  in  this  passage  is  plainly  indicated  by  the 
connection.  Notice  is  taken  of  a  temporary  convert  made  by 
the  word,  whom  persecution  causes  to  relapse  into  his  former 
state.  Cas.  renders  it  dcsciscit.  This  is  agreeable  to  the  sense, 
and  an  exact  version  of  the  word  ccpirxvrsti  used  in  the  parallel 
place,  L.  viii.  13. 

24.  il/rt^  be  compared  to  afield,  in  zchich  the  proprietor  had 
sown  good  grain,  w/^oiuS^  co&^cottu  (TTii^ovn  kxXov  a-Tre^fix  (v  ra  ecypeo 
xura.  It  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that,  in  translating  these  simi- 
litudes, the  words  ought  not  to  be  traced  with  rigour.  The  mean- 
ing is  sufficiently  evident. 

23.  Darnel,  ^t^xux.  E.  T.  Tares.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  Be. 
P'lsc.  Zizania.  Cas.  (because  ?«2;fl?z?MOT  is  not  Lat.)  has  chosen 
to  employ  a  general  appellation,  and  say,  Malas  herbas.  It  ap- 
pears from  the  parable  itself,  1st,  That  this  weed  was  not  only 
hurtful  to  the  corn,  but  otherwise  of  no  value,  and  therefore  to 
be  severed  and  burnt.     2dly,  That  it  resembled  corn,  especially 


104  NOTES  ON  en.  xiir. 

wheat,  since  it  was  only  when  the  wheat  was  putting  forth  the. 
ear  that  these  weeds  were  discovered.  No\t  neither  of  these  cha- 
racters will  suit  the  lare^  which  is  excellent  food  for  cattle,  and 
sometimes  cultivated  for  their  use  ;  and  which,  being  a  species  of 
vetch,  is  distinguished  from  corn  from  the  moment  it  appears 
above  ground.  Lightfoot  observes  that  the  Talmudlc  name  an- 
swering to  ^ii^oiviov  is  Vi\  zonw,wh\ch  is  probably  formed  from 
the  Gr.  and  quotes  this  saying,  Triticum  et  zonin  non  sunt  semi, 
na  heterogcnea.  Chr.  remarks  to  the  same  purpose,  ax.  «aa<j  t< 
er^e^jits*,  xXha  ^c^ccvici  kccXh^  o  km  Kctra.  rtjv  o''^iv^  eotxe  ■sr»;  na  o-<Ta;, 
"  he  mentions  no  other  weed  but  zizanui,  which,  in  its  appear- 
*'  ance,  bears  a  resemblance  to  wheat."  It  may  be  remarked  by 
the  way,  that  Chr.  speaks  of  it  as  a  plant  at  that  time  known  to 
every  body.  Now,  as  it  cannot  be  the  tare  that  is  meant,  it  is 
highly  probable  that  it  is  the  darnel^  in  La.  lolium^  namely,  that 
species  called  by  botanists  temule7itum,  w  hich  grows  among  corn, 
not  the  lolium  perenne^  commonly  called  ?Y/j/,  and  corruptly 
rye-grass^  which  grows  in  meadows.  For,  1st,  this  appears  to 
have  been  the  La.  word  by  which  the  Gr.  was  wont  to  be  inter- 
preted. 2dly,  It  agrees  to  the  characters  above  mentioned.  It 
is  a  noxious  weed  ;  for  when  the  seeds  happen  to  be  mingled  and 
ground  with  the  corn,  the  bread  made  of  this  mixture  always  oc- 
casions sickness  and  giddiness  in  those  who  eat  it;  and  the  straw 
has  the  same  effect  upon  the  cattle  :  it  is  from  this  quality,  and 
the  appearanceof  drunkenness  which  it  produces,  thatit  is  termed 
yvraie  in  Fr.  and  has  the  specific  name  temulentum  given  it  by 
botanisls.  And  probably  for  the  same  reason  it  is  called  by  Vir- 
gil, inj'elix  lolium.  It  has  also  a  resemblance  to  wheat  sufficient 
to  justify  all  that  relates  to  this  in  the  parable,  or  in  the  above 
quotations.  By  that  saying,  non  su?}f  semina  heterogcnea^  we 
are  not  to  understand,  with  Lightfoot,  that  they  are  of  the  same 
genus,  but  that  they  are  of  the  same  class  or  tribe.  Both  are 
comprehended  in  the  grumina  ;  nay  more,  both  terminate  in  a 
bearded  spike,  having  the  grains  in  two  opposite  rows.  All  the 
Fr.  translations  I  have  seen  render  it  yvraie.  Dio.  zizzanie^ 
which  in  the  Vocabolario  della  Crusca,  is  explained  by  the  La. 
lolium.  Those  who  render  it  cockle  are  as  far  from  the  truth  as 
the  common  version.  The  only  Eng.  translation  in  which  I  have 
found  the  word  darnel  h  Mr.  Wesley's. 


cu.  XIII.  S.  MATTHEW.  105 

32.  The  smallest  of  all  seeds  ;  that  is,  of  all  lliose  seeds  with 
which  the  people  of  Judea  were  then  acquainted.  Our  Lord's 
words  are  to  be  interpreted  by  popular  use.  And  we  learn  from 
this  Gospel,  xvii.  10.  that  like  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  was  be- 
come  proverbial  for  expressing  a  very  small  quantity. 

^  Becometh  a  tree.  That  there  was  a  species  of  the  sinapi,  or 
at  least  what  the  Orientals  comprehended  under  that  name,  which 
rose  to  the  size  of  a  tree,  appears  from  some  quotations  brought 
by  Lightfoot  and  Buxtorf,  from  the  writings  of  the  Rabbles, 
men  who  will  not  be  suspected  of  partiality,  when  their  testimo- 
ny  happens  to  favour  the  writers  of  the  N.  T. 

33.  Measures,  Fxrce,.  The  word  denotes  a  particular  measure; 
but  as  we  have  none  corresponding  to  it,  and  as  nothing  seems 
to  depend  on  the  quantity,  I  have,  after  our  translators,  used 
the  general  name,  ch.  v.  15.  N. 

35.  Things  whereof  all  antiquity  hath  been  silent.,  xey^pv/ni^Bva 
eiTTo  xaT<«(feA;j5  x.o(r/icii.  E.  T.  Things  which  have  been  kept  secret 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  The  Evangelist  has  not  fol- 
lowed literally  either  the  Heb.  a^p  ^jd  niTn,  or  the  version  of  the 
Seventy,  ^r^ocA^jttaTac  azr'  a,px*i'ii  but  has  faithfully  given  the  mean. 
ing.  I  have  endeavoured  to  imitate  him  in  this,  attaching  myself 
more  to  the  sense  than  to  the  letter.  This  is  in  a  more  especial 
manner  allowable  in  translating  quotations  from  a  poem.  Diss. 
XII.  P.  I.  §  10.  As  to  the  phrase  kxtx^bXi^  kof/xh,  see  ch.  xxv. 
34.  N. 

39.  Conclusion  of  this  state,  c-v^Ti'Kiia.  th  uimog.  E.  T.  The 
end  of  the  world  ;  ecim,  state,  ch.  xii.  32.  N.  I  commonly  ren- 
der TiMi  end,  (TvvriXeici  conclusion. 

41.  All  seducers,  Truvrx  (rx.u.\lcii,\u.  This  term  commonly  de- 
notes the  actions  or  things  which  ensnare  or  seduce ;  here  it  is 
the  persons,  being  joined  with  rac,  TromvTeii,  and  is  therefore  ren- 
dered seducers. 

48.   TTie  useless,  t«  trxTr^u,  ch.  vii.  17.  N. 

52.  New  things  and  old,  kxivx  t^  •jtu.xmx.  E.  T.  Tilings  new 
and  old.  There  is  no  ambiguity  in  the  Gr.  Each  of  the  adjec- 
tives, by  its  gender  and  number,  virtually  expresses  its  own  sub- 
stantive. In  the  E.  T.  both  adjectives  nezs  and  old  are  constru- 
ed with  the  same  substantive  things,  though  they  do  not  relate  to 


106  NOTES  ON 


CM.  xm. 


the  same  subject ;  for  the  new  things  are  certainly  different  from  - 
the  old.  Either,  therefore,  the  word  things  ought  to  be  repeated, 
and  it  should  be  things  new,  and  things  old ;  or  the  arrangement 
should  be  altered.  If  both  adjectives  immediately  precede  the 
noun  or  immediately  follow,  both  are  regarded  as  belonging  to 
the  same  substantive,  and  ought  to  relate  to  the  same  subject.  If 
the  noun  be  placed  after  one  of  the  adjectives,  and  before  the 
other,  it  will  be  understood  as  belonging  only  to  the  first,  and 
suggesting  the  repetition  of  the  term  after  the  second.  In  the 
present  case,  common  sense  secures  us  against  mistake  :  but,  if 
we  do  not  avoid  improprieties  in  plain  cases,  we  have  no  securi- 
ty for  escaping  them,  where  they  may  perplex  and  mislead.  Sec 
Phil,  of  Rhet.  B.  II.  ch.  vi.  §  II.  P.  II. 

54.  Synagogue.      One  MS.  with  the  Vul.  Sy.  and  Arm.  ver- 
sions rea.ds  synagogues. 

55.  The  carpenter'' s  son,  o  m  TejcTavas  »<«?.  Some  affirm  that 
all  the  evidence  we  have  that  Joseph  was  a  carpenter  is  from  tra- 
dition; that  the  word  used  in  the  Gospels  means  artificer  in  ge- 
neral, at  least,  one  who  works  in  wood,  stone,  or  metal.  I  ad- 
mit that  the  Gr.  retcrm  answers  nearly  to  the  Lat.  faber,  which, 
according  to  the  word  accompanying  it,  as  lignarius,  jerrarius, 
cerarius,  eboris,  or  marmoris,  expresses  diflerent  occupations. 
Thus,  we  have  also,  tsjctuv  |uA«v,  tri^ti^a,  x*^^^'>  ^'^*"'5  for  so  many 
sorts  of  artificers.  But  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  saying  also, 
that  when  the  word  is  used  alone,  it  commonly  denotes  one  of 
these  occupations  only,  and  not  any  of  them  indifferently.  That 
this  is  actually  the  case  with  this  word,  in  the  usage  of  the  sacred 
writers  ;  and  that,  when  it  is  by  itself,  it  implies  a  carjienter,  may 
be  proved  by  the  following,  amongst  other  passages  in  the  Sep. 
2  Ki.  xxii.  6.  2  Chron.  xxiv.  12.  xxxiv.  11.  Ezr.  iii.  7.  Is.  xli. 
7.  Zech.  i.  20.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  not  found  a  single 
passage  where  it  is  employed  in  the  same  manner,  to  denote  a 
man  of  a  different  occupation.  There  is  something  analogous, 
though  the  words  are  not  equivalent,  in  the  use  of  the  word  smith 
•with  us.  It  is  employed  in  composition  to  denote  almost  every 
artificer  in  metal,  the  species  being  ascertained  by  the  word  com- 
pounded with  it.  Hence  we  have  goldsmith,  silversniiih,  cop- 
persmith, locksmith,  gunsmith,  blacksmith.  But  if  we  use  the 
word  smith,  simply,  and  without  any  thing  connected  to  confine 
its  signification,  we  always  mean  blacksmith. 


,  H.  XIV.  S.  MATTHEW.  107 

55,  56.  Do  not  his  brothers,  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon, 
and  Judas,  and  all  his  sisters  live  amongst  tis  ?  oi  ei^£X<poi  uvth 
IxKM^©^,  !^  luTtii,  >^  'ZtfMiV,  xj  lovaxi  x^  «<  xee^<pxt  uvth,  ovj^i  Tretcrui 
sj-fo?  fl'iwc?  etirt.  Upon  reflection,  it  appears  the  more  natural  way 
of  translating  these  two  clauses,  to  make  but  one  question  of  both. 

^  n^oi  Tifcxi.     Mr.  yi.  3.  N. 

57.  Thei/  zoere  scandalized  at  him,  etrKavSxXK^ovro  ev  uvra.  E.  T. 
They  isere  offended  in  him.  This  is  one  of  the  few  instances  in 
which  the  Eng.  verb  scandalize,  expresses  better  the  sense  of  the 
Gr.  than  any  other  in  the  language.  To  be  scandalized,  is  to  be 
offended  on  account  of  something  supposed  criminal  or  irreli- 
gious. This  was  the  case  here.  Their  knowledge  of  the  mean, 
ness  of  our  Lord's  birth  and  education,  made  them  consider  him 
as  guilty  of  an  impious  usurpation,  in  assuming  the  character  of 
a  Prophet,  much  more  in  aspiring  to  the  title  of  the  Messiah. 
The  verb  to  be  offended,  does  not  reach  the  sense,  and  to  be 
offended  in,  can  hardly  be  said  to  express  any  thing,  because  not 
in  the  idiom  of  the  tongue.     Ch.  v.  29.  N. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

1.  Tefrarch,  Tirpupx,):';-  Properly,  the  governor  of  the  fourth 
part  of  a  country  ;  commonly  used  as  a  title  inferior  to  king,  and 
denoting  chief  ruler.  The  person  here  spoken  of  was  Antipas, 
a  son  of  Herod  the  Great.  The  name  king  is  sometimes  given 
to  tetrarchs.     See  verse  9, 

3.  His  brother.  Sons  of  the  same  father,  Herod  the  Great, 
by  different  mothers. 

-  Philip's.  The  name  is  not  in  the  Vul.  nor  in  the  Cam.  MS. 
It  is  in  the  Sax. 

4.  It  is  not  laiiifulfor  thee  to  have  her.  As  it  appears  from 
Josephus  ( Antiq.  L.  xviii.  c.  7.)  that  this  action  was  perpetrated 
during  the  life  of  her  husband,  it  was  a  complication  of  the 
crimes  of  incest  and  adultery.  There  was  only  one  case  where, 
in  a  man  might  lawfully  marry  his  brother's  widow,  which  was, 
when  he  died  childless.  But  Herodias  had  a  daughter  by  her 
husband- 

6.  But  when  Herod's  birth.day  was  kept,  yeuTia,  Se  uyof^emv 
ry  'HpuSov.  Some  think,  that  by  ym<rix  is  here  meant  the  day  of 
Herod's  accession  to  his  tetrarchy.     The  word  may  sometimes 


108  NOTES  ON  cii.  xit. 

be  used  with  this  latitude;  but  unless  where  there  is  positive  ev.i- 
dence  that  it  has  that  meaning,  the  safer  way  is  to  prefer  the 
customary  interpretation. 

9.  The  king  was  sorry ^  nevertheless^  from  a  regard  to  his 
oath,  &c.  In  how  dispassionate  a  manner,  and  with  what  un- 
common candour  does  Mt.  relate  this  most  atrocious  action  !  No 
exclamation  !  no  exagg;eration  !  no  invective !  There  is  no  allow- 
ance, which  even  the  friend  of  H?rod  would  have  urged  in  ex- 
tenuation of  his  guilt,  that  this  historian  is  not  ready  to  make. 
lie  was  sorry,  nevertheless,  from  a  regard  to  his  oath^  and  his 
guests — The  remark  of  Raphelius  on  the  whole  story  is  so  per- 
tinent, that  I  cannot  avoid  subjoining  it :  "  Vide,  quanta  simpli- 
"  citate  rem  narret,  ne  graviori  quidem  verbo  factum  indignissi- 
''  mum  notans.  Neque  hac  aliter  scribi  opportuit.  Ne  quis 
'"'  igitur  forsan  imperitior  ista  aspernetur,  quasi  crasso  nimis  hlo, 
"  nulloque  artificio,  sint  contexta :  aliis  formis  alia  ornamcnta 
"  conveniunt.  Hanc,  quam  Matthajus  sermoni  suo  induit,  nati- 
'•'  vus  maxime  color,  et  nuda  rerum  expositio  honestat." 

13.  By  land,  Tret^i,.  E.  T.  On  foot.  The  Gr.  word  has  un. 
questionably  both  significations.  It  means  on  foot,  when  op- 
posed to  on  horseback;  and  by  land,  when  contrasted  with 
by  sea. 

15.   Towards  the  evening.     See  verse  23.  N. 

19.  Blessed  them,  svXoyy.ire.  E.  T.  He  blessed.  With  us,  to 
bless  is  an  active  verb  ;  and  it  may  be  asked.  Whom,  or  what, 
did  he  bless  ?  The  words  in  connection  lead  us  to  apply  it  to  the 
loaves.  Thus,  lie  blessed,  and  brake,  and  gave  the  loaves.  Ori- 
ental use,  however,  would  incline  us  to  think  that  the  meaning 
is,  blessed  God ;  that  is,  gave  thanks  to  him.  Thus,  in  the  other 
miracle  of  the  same  kind,  recorded  in  the  next  chapter,  instead 
oi  evXoyn<ri,  we  have  ivx^piT-^'^oti;,  having  given  thanks.  See  also 
Mr.  viii.  6.  J.  vi.  11.  The  same  thing  takes  place  in  the  accounts 
given  by  the  sacred  writers  of  the  last  supper.  What  one  calls 
£fAsy;jj-c«5,  another  calls  iv^xpi?-i]a-x<;.  This  would  make  us  suspect 
the  terms  to  be  synonymous.  But  as  we  find  the  word  evXoyeu 
applied  L.  ix.  16.  and  1  Cor.  x.  16.  to  the  things  distributed, 
it  is  better  here  to  give  it  the  interpretation  to  which  the  con- 
struction evidently  points.  The  Jews  have,  in  their  rituals,  a 
prayer  used  on  such  occasions,  which  they  call  naia  brachach^ 


cu.  XIV,  S.  MATTHEW-  lOS^ 

that  is,  the  blessing,  or  benediction.  It  is  probable,  that  no  more 
was  meant  by  either  verb  than  that  he  said  such  a  prayer. 

23.  //  zcas  late.  It  may  appear  strange  to  an  ordinary  reader, 
that  the  same  phrase,  o-^icii  yivoy-ivr,/;,  is  used,  v.  15.  to  express 
the  time  when  his  disciples  applied  to  him  to  dismiss  the  multi- 
tude, which  was  immediately  before  he  fed  them  miraculously  in 
the  .ulderness,  and  now  after  the)'  had  eaten  and  were  dismissed, 
after  the  disciples  were  embarked,  and  had  sailed  half  way  over 
the  sea  of  Galilee  ;  and  after  he  himself  had  retired  to  a  moun- 
tain, and  been  occupied  in  prayer,  the  time  is  represented  by 
the  same  phrase,  o-<^ix(;  yivfty.tm.  Let  it  be  observed,  for  the  sake 
of  removing  this  difficulty,  that  the  Jews  spoke  of  two  evenings: 
the  first  was  considered  as  commencing  from  the  ninth  hour ; 
that  is,  in  our  reckoning,  three  o^clock  afternoon  ;  the  second 
from  the  twelfth  hour,  or  sunset.  This  appears  from  several 
passages  of  the  O.  T.  In  the  institution  of  the  passover,  for  in- 
stance, the  people  are  commanded  (Ex.  xii.  6.)  to  kill  the  lamb 
in  the  evening.  The  marginal  reading,  which  is  the  literal  ver- 
sion of  the  Heb.  is  between  the  two  evenings ;  that  is,  between 
three  and  six  o'clock  afternoon.  What  is  said,  therefore,  v.  15. 
denotes  no  more,  than  that  it  was  about  three  ;  what  is  said  here 
implies,  that  it  was  after  sun-set.  The  attendant  circumstances 
remove  all  ambiguity  from  the  words.  But  as  it  was  impossible 
to  make  this  peculiarity  in  the  idiom  perspicuous  in  a  translation, 
I  have  given,  in  the  version,  the  import  which  the  phrase  has  in 
the  diiferent  places,  and  have  added  tliis  explanation  for  the  sake 
of  the  unlearned.     Mr.  xv.  42.  N. 

33.  A  son  of  God,  lici  S-m.  E.  T.  The  son  of  God.  In  re- 
gard to  the  title  o  Cioi  m  B-ts,  which  alone  expresses  definitely  Me 
Son  of  God,  Mt.  mentions  it  only  once  as  given,  by  any  man,  to 
our  Lord,  before  his  resurrection  ;  and  that  was  in  the  memo- 
rable confession  made  by  Peter,  ch.  xvi,  16.  which  gave  occasion 
to  a  remarkable  declaration  and  promise.  It  may  be  asked,  Did 
not  those  mariners  mean  that  our  Lord  was  the  Messiah,  and,  by 
consequence,  more  eminently  than  ariy  other,  the  Sort  of  God? 
It  is  not  certain  that  this  declaration  implies  tl.eir  belief  in  him 
as  the  Messiah:  they  might  intend  only  to  say  that  lie  was  a 
Prophet ;  for  such  are  denominated  sons  of  Cod:  but  supposing 
they  meant  the  Messiah,  we  know  too  well  the  notions  which  at 

VOT'„  TV.  14 


UO  NOTES  ON  en.  xy. 

that  time  obtained  universally  concerning  the  Messiah,  as  a  tern* 
poral  deliverer,  to  conclude  that  they  annexed  to  the  appellation, 
Son  of  God,  aught  of  that  peculiarity  of  character  which  Chris- 
tians now  do,  on  the  best  authority.  If,  instead  of  God,  we 
should  say,  a  God,  the  version  would  be  still  more  literal,  and 
perhaps  more  just.  Some  think  that  those  mariners  were  Pagans, 
of  whom  there  was  a  great  mixture  in  some  places  on  the  coasts 
of  this  lake.  If  they  were,  the  Son  of  a  God  would  be  the  pro. 
per  expression  of  their  meaning.     Ch.  xsvii.  54.  N. 

35.   That  country,  rjjv  Trepi^u^ei  ex.eiv>jv.     E.  T.   That  conrrtry 
round  about.     Mr.  i.  28.  N. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

I.  Of  Jerusalem,  utto  'Upo<roXvf^u)i.  That  «7r«,  before  the  name 
of  a  place,  often  denotes  simply  of,  or  belonging  to,  and  not 
from,  that  place,  many  proofs  might  be  brought  from  classical 
writers,  as  well  as  from  sacred.  Of  the  latter  sort,  the  three 
examples  following  shall  suffice:  J.  xi.  1.  Acts  xvii.  13.  Heb. 
xiii.  24. 

'  4.  Revileth,  tMnaXoym.  E.  T.  Curseth.  I  am  astonished  that 
modern  translators  have  so  generally  rendered  the  Gr.  xxxoXoyuv, 
by  the  word  to  curse,  or  some  equivalent  term.  To  curse,  that 
is,  to  pray  imprecations,  is  always  expressed  in  the  N.  T.  by 
xXTx^(!C(rB-cif,  avxBef^ciTK^eiv,  }C!irct\ix6efi.xTi<^eiv'  a  CUrse,  by  ice!,rxpx, 
xixSifyLX,  y.xrx>)x6ef^x ;  cursed,  by  Kxntpxf^eva  and  eTriKxrxpxToi;.  The 
proper  import  of  the  word  x«xoA«ye<v,  is  to  give  abusive  language, 
to  revile,  to  calumniate.  It  may,  indeed,  be  said  justly,  that 
cursing,  as  one  species  of  abusive  words,  is  also  included.  But 
it  is  very  improper  to  confine  a  term  of  so  extensive  signification 
to  this  single  particular.  Nay  more,  the  application,  in  the 
present  instance,  is  evidently  to  reproachful  words  quite  differ- 
ent from  cursing.  Our  Lord,  by  quoting  both  the  command- 
ment and  the  denunciation  against  the  opposite  crime,  has  shown, 
that  the  Pharisees  not  only  allowed  the  omission,  but,  in  a  cer- 
tain case,  prohibited  the  observance  of  the  duty  ;  nay,  which  is 
worse,  made  no  account  of  the  commission  of  a  crime  which, 
by  the  law,  had  been  pronounced  capital.  First,  They  had  de- 
vised for  children  an  easy  method  of  eluding  the  obligation  to 


cH.  XV.  S.MATTHEW.  Ill 

maintain  thoir  indigent  parents,  which  is  implied  in  the  honour 
enjoined  by  the  precept;  and,  secondly,  They  made  light  of  a 
man's  treating  his  parent  abusively,  when  they  permitted  him  to 
say  with  impunity,  "  1  devote  whatever  of  mine  shall  profit 
"  thee;"  which,  though  not  properly  cursing  his  parent,  was 
threatening  him,  and  venting  an  implicit  imprecation  against 
himself,  that  he  might  be  held  guilty  of  perjury  and  sacrilege,  if 
ever  he  contributed  to  his  support.  This  I  take  to  be  the  yMzo. 
Myia,^  the  abuse,  of  which  our  Lord  signifies,  that,  instead  of 
being  the  means  of  releasing  them  from  the  observance  of  an  ex- 
press command  of  God,  was  itself  a  crime  of  the  most  heinous 
nature.  The  Heb.  verb  is  S^-?  hulal^  the  signification  of  which  is 
equally  extensive  with  that  of  the  Gr.  and  it  has,  in  some  places 
of  the  O.  T.  been  as  improperly  rendered  as  the  Gr.  is  in  the  N. 
In  none,  indeed,  more  remarkably  than  in  Nehem.  xiii.  25. 
where  the  inspired  writer  says  only,  I  reproached  them,  our  isi- 
terpreters  have,  not  very  decently,  made  him  say,  I  cursed  them. 
The  Heb.  k(dal,  and  the  Gr.  cacologeo,  are  both  rightly  render, 
ed,  by  all  the  Lat.  translators,  maledico,  a  term  exactly  of  the 
same  import.  But  those  Gr.  words  above  quoted,  which  signi- 
fy properly  to  curse,  are  rendered  very  diflerently  by  them  alL 
For  this  purpose,  they  use  imprccor,  execror,  detestor,  devovco^ 
din's  ago,  and  anathcmaiizo.  The  verb  x.xTupa.o!A.(/.i ,  is  only  once 
in  the  Vul.  translated  malcdico ;  and  into  this  I  imagine  the 
translator  has  been  led,  by  an  inclination  to  verbal  antithesis, 
which  has  often  occasioned  a  greater  deviation  from  the  sense. 
liejtedicffe  maledicentibtis  vobis.  The  only  Eng.  versions  I  have 
seen,  which  render  Kx^Xoym  rcr/'lcth,  are  \\'es.'s  Wor.'s  and 
Wa.'s.  Sa.  after  the  version  of  P.  R.  has  well  expressed  tlie 
sense  in  Fr.  by  a  periphrasis,  qui  aura  oulragc  dc  paroles, 

t).  I  devote.     Mr.  vii.  11.  N. 

-  Honour  bif  his  assistance.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15, 

8.   This  people  address  me  zcith  their  mouth,  and  honour  ttu 

with  their  lips.  Ey/K^st  f^oi  o  Xaoc,  irc%  tu  sof^XTf  ccvrmv,  y.xi  reu 
^et\eo-i  f^c  tif^x.  Vul.  Populus  hie  lubiis  me  honorat.  There  is 
nothing  to  answer  to  these  words,  tyyi^a  ^coi  ra  ^-cfA.x-.i  xvruv  y.»t'. 
the  like  defect  is  in  the  Sy.  the  Cop,  the  Sax.  the  Eth.  and  ihe 
Arm.  versions.  The  words  are  also  wanting  in  three  MSS.  The 
passage  in  the  prophecy  quoted,  is  agreeable  to  the  coram oit 
reading. 


in  NOTES  ON  CH.  XT. 

9.  Insiituliuni  merely  human,  iVTctX^xTot,  ecfSpioTrut.  E  T.  The' 
t>ommandments  of  men.  The  word  arxX!A,ot,  occurs  but  thrice  in 
the  N.  T-  namely  here,  in  the  parallel  place,  Mr.  vii.  7.  and  in 
Col.  ii.  22.  In  all  these  places  it  is  joined  with  xvB^uTrm  ;  as  it  is 
also  in  the  passage  of  the  Sep.  here  quoted.  Moreover,  in  all 
these  places,  the  evT^Attseroe  are  mentioned  with  evident  disappro- 
bation, and  contrasted,  by  implication,  Avith  the  precepts  of  God, 
•which,  in  the  N.  T.  are  never  denominated  e^iTaXu-aru,^  but  evroA'/;. 
For  these  reasons,  I  thought  it  more  suitable  to  the  original,  to 
distinguish  them  in  the  version. 

12.  Scandalised.     Ch.  xiii.  57.  N. 

15.  Saying,  va^uSoMv.  E.  T.  Parable.  What  Peter  wartod 
to  be  explained,  as  the  following  words  show,  was  that  sentence, 
maxim,  or  proverb,  which  we  have  in  v.  11.  It  is  not  what  gocth 
into  the  mouth — This,  on  no  principle,  could  be  rendered  para, 
ble,  except  that  of  Ar.  of  always  translating  the  same  word  by  the 
same  word;  a  principle  which  our  interpreters  have  not  often 
followed,  in  regard  to  this  or  any  other  term.     Ch.  xiii.  3.  N. 

17,    The  sink.      Mr.   vii.  19.   N. 

26.  To  the  dogs,  roii  xwoi^io'i;.  Our  Lord,  in  this  expression, 
did  but  adopt  the  common  style  of  his  countrymen  the  Jews,  in 
relation  to  the  Gentiles,  to  whom  this  woman  belonged  ;  and  he 
did  this,  evidently  with  a  view  to  make  the  reilection,  in  v,  28, 
strike  more  severely  against  the  former, 

30,  31,  The  cripple,  mX^.h^,.  E,  T.  maimed.  Though  maim- 
ed is  sometimes  expressed  by  y.vXXm,  the  Gr.  word  is  not  confin- 
ed to  this  sense,  but  denotes  equally  one  who  wants  a  limb,  and 
one  w  ho  has  not  the  use  of  it.  In  a  relation,  such  as  this,  it  ought 
to  be  rendered  in  its  fullest  latitude.  Where  the  context  shews 
it  refers  to  one  deprived  of  a  member,  as  xviii.  8.  it  should  be 
maimed.  In  v.  31.  there  is  nothing  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Ara.  Eth. 
and  Sax.  versions  answering  to  xfAAs?  lyuK;. 

32.  Lest  their  strength  fail,  tMiTcore  iy.Xv6x.Ttv.  E.  T.  Lest  they 
faint.  Vul.  Ne  deficiant.  Be,  more  explicitly,  Ne  viribus 
dejiciant.  Cas,  to  the  same  purpose,  Ne  defatiscantur.  None 
of  these  implies  so  much  as  the  Eng.  to  faint-     The  Lat,  phrase. 


en.  XVI.  S.MATTHEW.  US 

corresponding  to  it,  is  animi  deliquium pati.  It  appears.  Indeed, 
from  several  passages  in  the  Bible,  that  when  the  common  trans- 
lation was  made,  the  Eng.  yerb  to  fumt^  meant  no  more  than 
what  we  should  now  express  by  the  phrase,  to  grozo  faint,  to 
become  languid,  to  fail  either  in  strength  or  resolution.  See 
Josh.  ii.  9.  24.  Prov.  xxiv.  10.  Is.  xl.  30,  31.  L,  xviii.  1.2  Ccr. 
iv.  16.  Gal.  vi.  9.  Eph.  iii.  13.  Diss.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

37.  Maunds,  F^v^i^ug.     Ch.  xvi.  9,  10.  N. 

39.  Magdala,  Mxy^ccXa.  TheVul.  Magedan  ;  in  which  it  has 
the  concurrence  only  of  the  Cam.  MS.  and  of  the  Sax.  version. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

1.  To  try  him,  Trii^cc^ovm.  E.  T.  Tempting.  For  the  import 
of  the  Gr.  word,  see  the  note  on  ch.  iv.  7.  for  there  is  here  no 
difference  in  signification,  between  the  simple  Trti^x^c,,  and  the 
compound  eKwetsx^a.  An.  substitutes  for  this  word,  xciih  a  cap. 
tious  design,  and  Wor.  Captiously.  These  expressions  neither 
give  the  sense,  nor  are  in  the  spirit,  of  the  Evangelist.  I  admit 
that  it  appears  from  the  story,  that  those  men  were  captious.  It 
is  certain,  however,  that  the  sacred  writer  does  not  call  them  so. 
but  leaves  us  to  collect  it  from  the  naked  fact.  Their  putlin.T 
questions  to  make  trial  of  Jesus,  did  not  of  itself  imply  it ;  tha° 
might  have  proceeded  from  the  best  of  motives.  The  hist'oriaa 
invariably  preserves  the  same  equable  tenor,  never  betraying  the 
smallest  degree  of  warmth  against  any  person,  or  attempting  (o 
prepossess  the  minds,  or  work  upon  (he  passions,  of  his  readers. 
There  are  few  mistakes  so  injurious  to  the  original,  as  these  in- 
fusions of  a  foreign  temper. 

3.  '-iTToy-fiiTM.  E,  T.  Hypocrites.  But  this  word  is  not  found 
in  some  of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  Nor  has  it  been  i:;  those  co- 
pies from  which  the  Vul.  second  Sy.  Arm.  Eth.  and  Sax.  rersioiis 
were  made.     Nor  was  it  in  the  copies  used  by  Chr. 

8.  Distrustful.     Ch.  vi.  30.  3. 

9,  10.  Baskets — maunds,  y-opivm — <r7rvpi^ui.  E.  T,  Baskets.— 
baskets.  In  the  relation  formerly  given  of  both  miracles,  and 
here,  where  our  Lord  recapitulates  the  principal  circumstances 
of  each,  the  distinction  of  the  ves.sels  employed  for  holdhicr  the 


114  NOTES  ON  cH.  xti. 

fragments  is  carefully  marked.  Now,  though  our  words  are  not 
fit  for  answering  entirely  the  same  purpose  with  the  original 
terras,  which  probably  conveyed  the  idea  of  their  respective  si- 
zes, and  consequently  of  the  quantity  contained  ;  still  there  is  a 
propriety  in  marking,  were  it  but  this  single  circumstance,  that 
there  was  a  dilference.  A  maund  is  a  hand-basket.  It  is  men. 
tioned  by  Thevenot*,  as  used  in  the  East.  Harmer  also  takes 
notice  of  this  circumstance,  Obs.  xxvi.  Hence  (according  to 
Spelman)  the  term  Maundy.Thursday ,  the  name  given  to  the 
Thursday  before  Easter  ;  because  annually,  on  that  day,  the 
V\n<r  was  wont  to  put,  into  a  maund  or  hand-basket,  his  alms  to 
the  poor.  All  the  Lat.  and  foreign  translations  I  have  seen,  an. 
cient  and  modern,  Lu.'s  alone  excepted,  make  the  distinction, 
though  their  w  ords  are  as  ill  adapted  as  ours.  How  it  has  been 
overlooked  by  all  the  Eng.  translators,  and,  I  had  almost  said, 
by  them  only,  I  cannot  imagine. 

13.  Who  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  ?  E.  T.  Whom 
do  men  say  that  I  the  Son  of  Man  am  ?  Our  translato/s  have 
been  o-enerally  very  attentive  to  grammatical  correctness.  Here 
they  seem  to  have  overlooked  it,  through  attending  more  to  the 
sound  than  to  the  construction  of  the  words  in  Gr.  and  La.  T/v« 
(«.£  >.iysvi^  01  co^oj'Trai  eivxi,  tov  i/iov  ra  avS^aTrn  ;  Vul.  Quern  dicunt 
hotnines  esscfiliam  hominis  ?  It  must  be  t<v«  and  quern,  as  agree- 
ino^  with  y.i  nnd/dhim  hominis  in  the  accusative,  and  connected 
Avith  the  substantive  verb  eivai,  and  esse  in  the  infinitive.  Thus, 
we  should  say  properly,  in  Eng.  Whom  do  they  take  me  to  be  ? 
for  the  very  same  reason  ;  vchom  agreeing  with  me  in  the  accu- 
sative and  both  suiting  the  verb  to  be  in  the  infinitive.  But, 
in  any  of  these  languages,  if  the  sentence  be  so  construed  as  that 
the  verb  is  in  the  indicative  or  the  subjunctive  mood,  the  pro- 
nouns must  be  in  the  nominative.  We  say.  Who  (not  ■whom)  is 
he?  for  the  same  reason  that  we  should  say,  Quis  (not  quern) 
est  hie;  or  t/«  (not  nyct)  £«-<v  aroi.  I  should  not  have  thought 
this  grammatical  criticism  worth  making,  had  I  not  observed 
that  the  most  of  our  late  translators  had,  I  suppose,  through 
mere  inattention,  implicitly  followed  the  manner  of  the  Eng. 
interpreters. 

2  That  the  Son  of  Man  is  ?  E.  T.  That  1  the  Son  of  Man  am  ? 
This  is  conformable  to  the  common  reading.     The  ^e,  however, 

^  *  Travels,  ^art  I.  b.  II.  ch.  xxiv. 


CH.  xTi.  S.  MATTHEW.  115 

was  not  found  in  any  of  the  copies  used  by  Jerom.  The  Vul. 
Ara.  Sax.  Cop.  and  Eth.  versions,  have  no  word  corresponding 
to  it.  Besides,  it  is  unsuitable  to  the  style  of  the  Gospels.  In 
no  other  passage,  where  our  Lord  calls  himseli  the  Son  of  Man, 
does  he  annex  the  personal  pronoun,  or  express  himself  in  the 
first  person,  but  in  the  third. 

18.  Thou  art  named  Rock  ;  and  on  this  rock,  c-v  et  Uerpoi;,  kcu 
iTTi  TctvTrj  TYi  irit^u. —  E.  T.  Thou  art  Peter  ;  and  upon  this  rock — 
But  here  the  allusion  to  the  name,  though  specially  intended  by 
our  Lord,  is  totally  lost.  There  was  a  necessity,  therefore,  in 
Eng.  in  order  to  do  justice  to  the  declaration  made,  to  depart  a 
little  from  the  letter.  I  say  in  Eng.  because  in  several  langua- 
ges, Lat.  Itn.  and  Fr.  for  instance,  as  well  as  in  Sy.  and  Gr.  the 
name,  without  any  change,  shews  the  allusion. 

=*  The  gates  of  hades      Diss.  VL  P.  U  k  17. 

19.  Whatever  thou  shalt  bind — whatever  thou  shalt  loose — 
Ch.  xviii.  18.     N. 

20  The  name  Jesus  is  wanting  in  many  MSS.  and  some  an- 
cient versions. 

21.  Began  to  discover,  tiftlaro  ^hkwuv.     Mr.  v.  17.  N. 

22.  Taking  him  aside,  wfoo-Aaoe^fv®-  avrev.  E.  T.  Took  him 
and — This  expression  is  quite  indefinite.  Some  render  the  words, 
embraced  him  ;  others,  took  him  bjj  the  hand.  I  can  discover 
no  authority  for  either.  To  take  aside  evidently  suits  the  mean- 
ing which  the  verb  has  in  other  places.  In  Acts  xviii.  26.  it  can- 
not be  interpreted  otherwise.  And  even  in  other  parts  of  that 
book,  where  the  word  is  used  to  denote  the  admission  or  recep. 
tion  of  converts,  this  sense  may  be  said  to  be  included.  An  ad- 
mission into  the  church  was,  in  several  respects,  a  separation 
from  the  world. 

'^  Reproved  him,  vp^aro  eTrirtfi^v  x'jtu.  Sonle  interpreters,  to  put 
the  best  face  on  Peter's  conduct  on  this  occasion,  render  the 
words  thus,  Began  to  expostulate  zi-ith  him.  To  translate  the 
verb  in  this  manner,  is  going  just  as  far  to  an  extreme  on  one 
hand,  as  to  translate  it  threaten  is  going  on  the  other.  Mr.  iv. 
25.  N.  It  cannot  be  questioned,  that  when  the  verb  t-xiriy.xv  re. 
lates  to  any  thing  past,  it  always  implies  a  declaration  of  cen- 
sure or  blame  :  and  if  it  be  thought  that  this  would  infer  great 
presumption  in  Peter,   it  may  he  asked.   Does  not  the  rebuke 


116  NOTES  ON 


C«.  XVI. 


■which  he  drew  on  himself,  v.  23.  from  so  mild  a  Master,  evident- 
ly infer  as  much  ?  When  we  consider  the  prejudices  of  the  dis- 
ciples,  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  we 
cannot  be  much  surprized  that  a  declaration,  such  as  that  in  v. 
2L  totally  subversive  of  all  their  hopes,  should  produce,  in  a 
■warm  temper,  as  great  impropriety  of  behaviour  as  (admitting 
the  ordinary  interpretation  of  the  word)  Peter  was  then  charge, 
able  wilh. 

^  God  forbid,  'iXiui;  eroi.  E.  T.  Be  it  far  from  thee.  In  the 
common  use  of  this  phrase  in  the  Sop.  it  answers  exactly  to  a 
Heb.  word  signifying  absit,  God  forbid.  It  is  thus  also  render- 
ed in  the  common  version.  See  1  Sam.  xiv.  45.  1  Chron.  xi.  19. 
In  the  Apocrypha  the  use  is  the  same.  Thus,  1  Mac.  ii.  21. 
;>i£«?  yifi.li  KxrctXiTTii))  xo/Mv  x,oit  ^tKcci6^ft.xrxy  is  justly  rendered  in  the 
common  version,  God  forbid  that  zee  should  forsake  the  law  and 
the  ordinances.  In  most  other  places  it  is  translated  far  be  it. 
The  sense  is  the  same. 

23.  Adversary.,  'Zxravu.     Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  §  5. 

^  Obstacle.^  «rjc«vJ"«A«v.     Ch.  v.  29.  N. 

24.  If  any  man  xcill  come.,  et  t<?  ^jAe*  i>i^etv.  Dod.  and  others. 
If  any  one  is  xsilling  to  come.  I  acknowledge  that  the  Eng.  verb 
7j:ill  does  not  always  reach  the  full  import  of  the  Gr.  ^iXetv  :  as 
isill  with  us  is  Sometimes  no  more  than  a  sign  of  the  future,  it 
does  not  necessarily  suggest  volition.  But  this  example  does 
not  fall  under  the  remark.  In  a  case  like  the  present,  if  no  more 
than  the  futurity  of  the  event  were  regarded,  the  auxiliary  ought 
to  be  shall.)  and  not  will.^  as  thus,  '  If  it  shall  be  fair  weather  to. 
'  morrow,  I  will  go  to  such  a  place.'  '  If  he  shall  call  on  me,  I 
'  will  remind  him  of  his  engagement.'     In  fact,  to  say  '  if  any 

*  man  be  zcilling  to  come'  is  to  say  less  than  '  if  any  man  will 

*  come.'  The  former  expresses  only  a  present  inclination,  the 
latter  a  resolution  strong  enough  to  be  productive  of  its  effect. 
But  when  put  in  the  form  of  a  question,  it  is  equally  good  either 
way.     L.  xiii.31.  N.  J.  vii.  17.  N. 

<'^  Under  my  guidance.,  oTrta-u  jm,».  E.  T.  After  me.  But  the 
Eng.  phrase  to  come  after  one,  means  quite  another  thing. 

26.  With  the  forfeit  of  his  life,  rr,^  Se  -^v^t^i  ^}ifi.t6>Bii.  E.  T. 
Lose  his  ozon  soul.     Forfeit  comes  nearer  the  import  of  the  ori- 


cH.  XVII.  S.  MATTHEW.  117 

ginal  word,  which  Dod.  has  endeavoured  to  convey  by  a  circum- 
locution, Should  be  punished  with  the  loss  of  his  life  But  the 
chief  enor  in  the  E.  T.  lies  in  changing,  without  necessity,  the 
word  answering  to  %^t/;^^,  calling  it,  in  tiie  preceding  verse,  life^ 
and  in  this  soul.  The  expressions  are  proverbial,  importing, 
'  It  signifies  nothing  how  much  a  man  gain,  if  it  be  at  the  ex. 
*  pcnse  of  his  life.'  That  our  Lord  has  a  principal  eye  to  the 
loss  of  the  soul,  or  of  eternal  life,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But 
this  sentiment  is  couched  under  a  proverb,  which,  in  familiar 
use,  concerns  only  the  present  life.  That  -^vxyi  is  susceptible  of 
both  meanings  is  beyond  a  question. 
2  Not  give.     Mr.  viii.  37.   N. 

28.  Shall  not  taste  death.  To  taste  death,  and  to  see  death, 
are  common  Hebraisms  for  to  die. 

^  Enter  upon  his  reign;  to  wit,  by  the  miraculous  displays 
of  his  power,  and  the  success  of  his  doctrine. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

1.  Apart,  X.XT  ihxv.  As  this  adverbial  expression  immediate. 
ly  follows  optti  v^^Xov,  some  have  thought  that  it  refers  to  the  situ, 
ation  of  the  mountain,  as  standing  by  itself,  far  from  other 
mountains,  and  have  thence  concluded  that  the  mountain  meant 
was  Tabor  in  Galilee,  which  exactly  fits  this  description,  being 
of  a  conical  figure,  surrounded  by  a  plain  (Maundrel's  Travels.) 
But  it  is  more  agreeable  to  the  ordinary  application  of  the  words 
x«t'  ihotv,  to  interpret  them  as  denoting  the  privacy  of  persons,  in 
particular  transactions,  and  not  the  situation  of  places. 

2.  Js  the  light,  ai  TO  <pa)g.  Va].  Sicut  nix.  The  Cam  a<;  x"*>^- 
The  Eth.  and  Sax.  versions  are  the  only  other  authorities  for  this 
reading. 

4.  Booths,  o-xijvxi.  E.  T.  Tabernacles.  The  word  (rxj;y;j  denotes 
not  only  what  we  properly  call  a  tabernacle,  or  moveable  wood- 
en house,  and  a  tent,  which  is  also  a  sort  of  portable  house,  con- 
sisting of  either  cloth  or  skins,  extended  on  a  frame,  and  easily 
put  up  or  taken  down,  but  also  a  temporary  i^erf  or  booth,  made 
of  the  branches  of  trees,  which  abounded  in  the  mountainous 
parts  of  Judea,  where  the  materials  proper  for  rearing  either 
tent  or  tabernacle  could  not  be  found  on  a  sudden.     It  was  of 

V0L.*1V.  15 


118  NOTES  ON  CH.  xvir. 

such  branches  that  they  reared  booths  for  themselves  on  the 
feast  of  tabernacles,  which  would  be  more  properly  styled  the 
feast  of  booths,  if  changing  the  name  of  a  festival  did  not  savour 

of  affectation. 

11.  To  consummate  the  zshole,  Kui  cfTTtit.u.Tu.'rvirii  Tva.'irei,.  E.  T. 
And  restore  all  things.  The  original  sense  of  the  verb  ce.7roKx~ 
6i?-}}ft,i  is,  instauro,  redintegro,  I  begin  aneic.  It  is  most  proper- 
ly applied  to  the  sun  and  planets,  and  in  regard  to  which  the 
finishing  and  the  recommencing  of  their  course  are  coincident. 
Besides,  their  return  to  the  place  whence  they  set  out,  does,  as  it 
were,  restore  the  face  of  things  to  what  it  was  at  the  beginning 
of  their  circuit.  Hence  the  word  has  got  two  meanings,  which, 
on  reflection,  are  more  nearly  related  than  at  first  they  appear  to 
be.  One  is  to  restore,  the  other  to  finish.  In  both  senses  the 
word  was  applicable  to  the  Baptist,  who  came  as  a  reformer  to 
re-establish  that  integrity  from  which  men  had  departed.  He 
came  also  as  the  last  prophet  of  the  old  dispensation,  to  finish 
that  state  of  things,  and  usher  in  a  new  one.  When  it  is  follow- 
ed, as  in  the  text,  by  so  comprehensive  a  word  as  TravTct,  without 
any  explanation,  it  must  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  finishing. 
When  the  meaning  is  to  restore,  there  never  fails  to  be  some  ad- 
dition made,  to  indicate  the  state  to  which,  or  the  person  to 
whom,  the  restoration  is  made.  See  ch.  xii.  13.  Mr.  iii.  5.  viii. 
25.  L.  vi.  10.  Acts,  i.  6.  Heb.  xiii.  19.  But  when  the  meaning 
is  to  finish,  no  addition  is  requisite.  In  the  present  instance,  he 
shall  restore  all  things,  is,  io  say  the  least,  a  very  indefinite  ex- 
pression. This  remark  must  be  extended  to  the  verbal  noun 
ar<5K«rijj5-«cr/?,  which,  when  similarly  circumstanced,  ought  to  be 
rendered  completion,  consummation,  or  accomplishment,  not  re- 
storation, re-establishment,  or  restitution.  In  Acts  iii.  21.  Pe- 
ter says,  concerning  our  Lord,  as  it  stands  in  the  common  ver- 
sion, IVhom  the  heaven  must  receive,  until  the  times  of  restitu- 
tion of  all  things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  all 
his  holy  prophets,  since  the  icorld  began.  To  me  it  is  manifest 
that  these  words,  the  restitution  of  all  things  zchich  God  haih 
spoken  by  his  prophets,  cony ey  no  meaning  at  all.  Substitute 
accomplishment  for  restitution,  and  there  remains  not  a  vestige 
either  of  difficulty  or  of  impropriety,  in  the  sentence.  I  have 
chosen  the  verb  to  consummate,  in  the  present  instance,  as  it 
conveys  somewhat  of  both  the  senses  of  ct7roKxei?->]f^s.     It  denotes, 


car.  xTiii.  S.  MATTHEW.  119 

to  render  perfect,  which  coincides  with  the  reformation  or  resto. 
ration  to  integrity,  he  was  sent  to  promote,  and  also  to  conclude^ 
or  finish,  the  Mosaic  economy.  All  the  La.  and  most  other  mo- 
dern  translators,  have  implicitly  followed  the  Vul.  which  ren- 
ders it  restituet.  Several  Eug.  interpreters  have  varied  a  little, 
and  given  at  least  a  more  definite  sense,  some  saying  regulate  all 
things^  others,  set  all  things  right.  But  some  of  the  Oriental 
versions,  particularly  the  Sy.  and  the  Per.  render  it  as  I  have 
done. 

15.  Lunacy.  This  man's  disease  we  should,  from  the  symp- 
toms, call  epilepsy^  rather  than  lunacy.  But  I  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  change  the  name,  as  the  circumstances  mentioned 
sufficiently  show  the  case,  whilst  the  appellation  given  it  (c-fA^jv*- 
aZ^iTdi)  shows  the  general  sentiments  at  that  time,  concerning  the 
moon's  inlluence  on  this  sort  of  malady. 

21.  This  kind  is  not  dispossessed.     Mr.  ix.  29.  N. 

22.  Is  to  be  delivered  irp^  u.eXXii  ■va^xSi^oT.'^cti.  In  my  notion 
of  the  import  of  this  compound  future,  there  is  much  the  same 
difference  between  Trx^x^o^tiTeTM  and  //.eXXn  Trctpa^t^aTB-M  in  Gr.  as 
there  is  between  the  phrases  will  be  delivered  and  is  to  be  deli., 
vered  in  Eng.  The  latter  gives  a  hint  of  the  nearness  of  the  event, 
which  is  not  suggested  by  the  other.     Ch.  iii.  7.  N. 

24.  The  didrachma  ;  a  tribute  exacted  for  the  support  of  the 
temple,  from  which  Jesus,  as  being  the  Son  of  God,  whose  house 
the  temple  was,  ought  to  have  been  exempted. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

3.  Unless  ye  be  changed^  euv  (m)  rpct<PiiTe.  E.  T.  Except  ye  be 
converted.  But  the  Eng.  term  to  convert,  denotes  always  one  or 
other  of  these  two  things,  either  to  bring  over  from  infidelity  to 
the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  or  to  recover  from  a  state  of 
impenitence  to  the  love  and  obedience  of  God.  Neither  of  these 
appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  here.  The  only  view  is, 
to  signify  that  they  must  lay  aside  their  ambition  and  worldly 
pursuits,  before  they  be  honoured  to  be  the  members,  much  more 
the  ministers,  of  that  new  establishment,  or  kingdom,  he  wa> 


130  NOTES  ON  cH.  xvni. 

about  to  erect.  Cas.  renders  it  very  properly  nisi  mutatifueritiSj 
and  has  in  this  been  followed  by  some  Fr.  translators. 

6.  An  upper  millstone,  ft.vx'^  ovix.'^.  E.  T.  A  millstone.  All 
the  La.  translators  have  rendered  it  mala  asinaria,  a  millstone 
turned  by  an  ass.  All  the  foreign  translations  I  have  seen,  adopt 
this  interpretation.  That  given  by  Phavorinus  appears  to  me 
preferable.  He  explains  f^vx®^  ovix.(^  the  upper  millstone.  Ov®- 
alone  was  a  common  name  for  the  tipper,  as  f^vX?j  was  for  the 
nether  millstone.  MvA(^  might  denote  either.  Sometimes  an 
adjective  was  joined  to  ov^",  when  used  in  this  sense,  to  prevent 
ambiguity.  Xenophon  calls  it  ov®-  otXinn.  In  the  same  way  it 
appears  that  Mt.  adds  to  f^vx^,  inillstone,  the  epithet  ov<ko5,  to 
express  the  upper.  I  own  that,  in  the  version,  the  last  mention, 
ed  term,  after  the  example  of  other  Eng.  translators,  might  have 
been  dropt,  as  not  affecting  the  import  of  the  sentence.  B-t  as 
Mr.  has  employed  a  different  phrase,  Xi6oi  f^vXivoi,  whirl,  e  pres- 
ses the  thing  more  generally,  I  always  endeavour,  if  possibk',  that 
the  Gospels  may  not  appear,  in  the  translation,  more  coincident, 
in  style  and  manner,  than  they  are  in  the  original. 

7.  JVo  unto  the  world.     L.  vi.  24,  25,  26.  N. 

10.  Their  angels.  It  was  a  common  opinion,  among  the  Jews, 
that  every  person  had  a  guardian  angel  assigned  to  him. 

12.  I'Vill  he  not  leave  the  ninety.nine  upon  the  mountains, 
and  go.  a^i  ot(peti;  Tc6  e]i)iiv»M)iTecevvecie,  ctti  rat.  «^^  TropevSsii-  E.  T« 
Doth  he  not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine,  and  goeth  into  the  moun- 
tains. Vul.  Nonnc  relinquit  nonagitiianovem  in  montibus,  et 
vadit.  The  Sy.  to  the  same  purpose.  The  Gr.  is  susceptible  of 
either  interpretation,  according  as  we  place  the  comma  before, 
or  after,  evi  rot,  opt}.  The  parallel  passage,  L,  xv.  4.  which  has 
no  ambiguity,  decides  the  question.  What  is  here  called  «p^  is 
there  tp^f^ii.  Both  terms  signify  a  hilly  country,  fitter  for  pas- 
ture than  for  agriculture.     Mr.  i.  3.  N. 

17.  Acquaint  the  congregation  znth  it,  u-xi  nj  ex.icXi!<rix.  E.  T. 
Tell  it  to  the  church.  I  know  no  way  of  reaching  the  sense  of 
our  Lord's  instructions,  but  by  understanding  his  words  so  as 
they  must  have  been  understood,  by  his  hearers,  from  the  use 
that  then  prevailed.  The  word  cxxXi}Tix  occurs  frequently  in  the 
Sep.  and  is  that  by  which  the  Heb.  'jrrp  kahal  is  commonly  trans- 


GH.  XVIII.  S.  MATTHEW.  121 

iated.  That  word  we  find  used  in  two  different,  but  related 
senses,  in  the  O.  T.  One  is  for  a  whole  nation,  considered  as 
constituting  one  commonwealth  or  polity.  In  this  sense  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel  are  denominated  ^r*©-*  »'  eK.y.x»iTto(,  IrpcciX,  and  ^xrx 
•v  exK^^firix  ©£«.  The  other  is  for  a  particular  congregation  or 
assembljj^  either  actually  convened,  or  accustomed  to  convene,  in 
the  same  place.  In  this  sense  it  was  applied  to  those  who  were 
wont  to  assemble  in  any  particular  synagogue  ;  for  every  syna. 
gogue  had  its  own  my-Xi^Tix.  And  as  the  word  o-vtccyMyT]  was  some- 
times employed  to  signify,  not  the  house,  but  the  people;  those 
two  Gr.  words  were  often  used  promiscuously.  Now  as  the  na- 
ture of  the  thing  sufficiently  shows  that  our  Lord,  in  this  direc- 
tion, could  not  have  used  the  word  in  the  first  of  the  two  senses 
above  given,  and  required  that  every  private  quarrel  should  be 
made  a  national  afi'air,  we  are  under  a  necessity  of  understanding 
it  in  the  last,  as  regarding  the  particular  congregation  to  which 
the  parties  belonged.  What  adds  great  probability  to  this,  as 
Lightfoot  and  others  have  observed,  is  the  evidence  we  have  that 
the  like  usage  actually  obtained  in  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  pri- 
mitive church.  Whatever  foundation,  therefore,  there  may  be, 
from  those  books  of  Scripture  that  concern  a  later  period,  for  the 
notion  of  a  church  representative  ;  it  would  be  contrary  to  all  the 
rules  of  criticism,  to  suppose  that  our  Lord  used  this  term  in  a 
sense  wherein  it  could  not  then  be  understood  by  any  one  of  his 
hearers  ;  or  that  he  would  say  congregation^  for  so  the  word  lite- 
rally imports,  when  he  meant  only  a  few  heads  or  directors.  L. 
Cl.  renders  this  passage  in  the  same  manner,  dites  le  a  V assemble. 
But  Ln  ch,  xvi.  18.  where  our  Lord  manifestly  speaks  of  all,  with- 
out exception,  who,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  should  receive  him 
as  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  1  have  retained  the 
word  churchy  as  being  there  perfectly  unequivocal.  Simon,  in 
effect,  gives  the  same  explanation  to  this  verse,  that  I  do :  for, 
though  he  retains  the  word  eglise  in  the  version,  he  explains  it  in 
a  note,  as  importing  no  more  than  the  particular  assembly  or 
congregation  to  which  the  parties  belong. 

18.  Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind,  ia-u  exv  ho-ysrc.  The  promise 
made  especially  to  Peter,  ch.  xvi.  19.  is  made  here  to  all  the 
apostles.  It  is  with  them  our  Lord  is  conversing  through  the 
whole  of  this  chapter.  The  Jewish  phraseology  seems  to  warrant 


122  NCXi^ES  ON  CH.  xviii. 

the  explanation  of  binding  and  loosing^  by  prohibiting  and  per^ 
mitting.  The  connection  here  would  more  naturally  lead  us  to 
interpret  it,  of  condemning  and  absolving^  thus  making  it  a 
figurative  expression  of  what  is  spoken  plainly,  J.  xx.  23.  Whose 
sins  soever  ye  remii,  they  are  remitted  to  them  ;  and  zshose  sins 
soever  ye  retain^  they  are  retained.  It  is  not  impossible  that, 
under  the  figure  of  binding  and  loosing^  both  may  be  compre- 
hended. It  is  a  good  rule,  in  doubtful  cases,  to  translate  literally, 
though  obscurely,  rather  than  run  the  hazard  of  mistranslating, 
by  confining  an  expression  to  a  meaning  of  which  we  are  doubt- 
ful whether  it  was  the  author's. 

23,  The  administration  of  heaven.^  v  ^cvrixncc  rm  apumv.  Diss. 
V.  P.  I.  §  7. 

25.  That  he,  and  his  zi;ife,  and  children,  and  all  that  he  had, 
should  be  sold.  A  custom,  for  the  satisfaction  of  creditors, 
which,  how  cruel  soever  we  justly  account  it,  was,  in  early  ages, 
established  by  the  laws  of  many  countries,  in  Europe,  as  well  as 
in  Asia,  republican,  as  well  as  monarchical. 

29.  /  will  pay  thee.  The  common  Gr.  adds  Treivret,  all.  But 
this  word  is  not  found  in  many  MSS.  several  of  them  of  princi- 
pal note,  nor  in  some  ancient  versions  and  editions.  Mill  and 
Wetstein  have  both  thought  proper  to  reject  it. 

34.  To  the  jailors,  to/?  /3«c-^v;s-«/?.  E.  T.  To  the  tormejitors. 
The  word  /3<«5-i*v/5-j}5  properly  denotes  examiner,  particularly  one 
who  has  it  in  charge  to  examine  by  torture.  Hence  it  came  to 
signify  JazVor,  for  on  such,  in  those  days,  was  this  charge  com- 
monly devolved.  They  were  not  only  allowed,  but  even  com- 
manded, to  treat  the  wretches  in  their  custody,  with  every  kind 
of  cruelty,  in  order  to  extort  payment  from  them,  in  case  they 
had  concealed  any  of  their  effects ;  or,  if  they  had  nothing,  to 
wrest  the  sum  owed,  from  the  compassion  of  their  relations  and 
friends,  who,  to  release  an  unhappy  person,  for  whom  they  had 
a  regard,  from  such  extreme  misery,  might  be  induced  to  pay  the 
debt ;  for,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  person  of  the  insolvent 
debtor  Avas  absolutely  in  the  power  of  the  creditor,  and  at  his 
disposal. 

35.  Who  forgiveth  not  from  his  heart  the  faults  of  his  brother., 

SCtV  H.7]  (X.(p?lTi     iKCX.^a<i    TU   CtOiX^U   KVTH  CtTTO     TUi  X.U.fiOt6)V  Uf/MV   Tct  TrxpXTT- 

Tui^dTct.  ctvrm.     There  is  nothing  in  the  Vul.  answering  to  the^ 


CH.  XIX, 


S.  MATTHEW.  123 


three  last  words.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Ara.  the  Cop. 
the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  versions.  They  are  wanting  also  in  the 
Cam.  and  three  other  MSS. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

1.    Upon  the  Jordan.     Ch.  iv.  15,  N. 

4.   JVhen  the  Creator  made  man^  he  formed  a  inule  and  afe., 

muie.  0  7roi>i(rxiy  ccpa-ev  khi  6ijAv  eTToDjc-ev  uvrag.    E.  T.  He  zchich  made 

them,  made  them  male  and  female.  But  they  could  not  have 
translated  the  clause  differently,  if  the  Gr.  expression  had  been 
oeppsvxi  Kxc  B^rjXHKi  e'^ottjs-iv  ccvtov^.  Yet  it  is  manifest  that  the  sense 
Mould  have  been  different.  All  that  this  declaration  would  have 
implied  is,  that  when  God  created  mankind,  he  made  people  of 
both  sexes.  But  what  argument  could  have  been  drawn  from  this 
principle  to  shew  that  the  tie  of  marriage  was  indissoluble  ?  Or 
how  could  the  conclusion  annexed  have  been  supported  ?  For 
this  cause  a  man  shall  leave  father  and  mother — Besides,  it  was 
surely  unnecessary  to  recur  to  the  history  of  the  creation,  to 
convince  those  Pharisees  of  what  all  the  world  knew,  that  the 
human  race  was  composed  of  men  and  women,  and  consequently, 
of  two  sexes.  The  weight  of  the  argument,  therefore,  must  lie 
in  this  circumstance,  that  God  created  at  first  no  more  than  a 
single  pair,  one  of  each  sex,  whom  he  united  in  the  bond  of  mar- 
riage, and,  in  so  doing,  exhibited  a  standard  of  that  union  to  all 
generations.  The  very  words,  and  these  two,  shew  that  it  is  im- 
plied in  the  historian's  declaration,  that  they  were  two,  one  male 
and  one  female,  and  no  more.  But  this  is  by  no  means  implied 
in  the  common  version.  It  lets  us  know,  indeed,  that  there  were 
two  sexes,  but  gives  us  no  hint  that  these  were  but  two  persons. 
Unluckily,  Eng.  adjectives  have  no  distinction  of  number  ;  and 
through  this  imperfection,  there  appears  here,  in  all  the  Eng. 
translations  I  have  seen,  something  inconclusive  in  the  reasoning, 
which  is  peculiar  to  them.  In  our  idiom,  an  adjective,  construed 
with  the  pronoun  them,  or  indeed  with  any  plural  noun  or  pro- 
noun, is  understood  to  be  plural.  There  is,  therefore,  a  neces- 
sity, in  a  case  like  this,  if  we  would  do  justice  to  the  original, 
that  the  defect,  occasioned  by  our  want  of  inflections,  be  sup- 
plied, by  giving  the  sentence  such  a  turn  as  will  fully  express 


124  NOTES  ON  ch.  xix. 

the  spiise.  This  end  is  here  easily  effected,  as  the  words  male 
a.n6  female,  in  our  language,  may  be  used  either  adjpctively  or 
substantively-  And  when  they  are  used  as  substantives,  they  are 
susceptible  of  the  distinction  of  number. 

5.  They  fioo  shall  be  one  flesh,  ccravrcci  oi  $vo  eig  <rct.py.ot  f^ioiv. 
This  is  a  quotation  from  Gen.  ii.  24.  in  which  place  it  deserves 
our  notice,  that  there  is  no  word  answering  to  two  in  the  present 
Masoretic  editions  of  the  Heb.  Bible.  But,  on  the  othsr  hand, 
it  ought  to  be  observed  that  the  Samaritan  copies  have  this  word, 
that  the  Sep.  reads  exactly  as  the  Gospel  does.  So  do  also  the 
Vul.  the  Sy.  and  the  Ara.  versions  of  the  O.  T.  It  has  been 
observed  of  this  passage,  that  it  is  four  times  quoted  in  the  N. 
T.  to  wit,  here,  in  Mr,  x.  8.  1  Cor.  vi.  16.  and  Eph.  v.  31.  and 
in  none  of  them  is  the  word  ^vo  wanting.  The  only  ancient  ver- 
sion, of  any  consideration,  wherein  it  is  not  found,  is  the  Chal- 
dee.  But  with  regard  to  it,  we  ought  to  remember,  that  as  the 
Jewish  Rabbies  have  made  greater  use  of  it,  in  their  synagogues 
and  schools,  than  of  any  other  version,  they  have  had  it  in  their 
power  to  reduce  it,  and  in  fact  have  reduced  it,  to  a  much  closer 
conformity,  than  any  other,  to  the  Heb.  of  the  Masorets.  It  is 
well  known  how  implicitly  the  Rabbies  are  followed  by  their 
people.  And  they  could  not  have  adopted  a  more  plausible  rule 
than  that  the  translation  ought  to  be  corrected  by  the  original. 
But  as  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  the  read- 
ing in  the  N.  T.  I  think,  for  the  reasons  above  named,  there  is 
the  greatest  ground  to  believe,  that  the  ancient  reading  in  the 
O.  T.  was  the  same  with  this  of  the  New. 

7.  JVhi/  did  Moses  command  to  give  a  writing  oj  divorcement, 
and  dismiss  her?  By  the  manner  in  which  they  put  the  question, 
one  would  imagine  that  Moses  had  commanded  both,  to  wit,  the 
dismission  and  the  writing  of  divorcement ;  whereas,  in  fact,  he 
had  only  permitted  the  dismission  ;  but  in  case  they  should  use  the 
permission  given  them,  commanded  the  writing  of  divorcement. 

8.  Untractahle  disfiosilion,  c-KXti^enap^ixv.     Diss.  IV.  §  22. 

12.  Let  him  act  this  part  zcho  can  act  it,  o  Sv}>ctin,ivBi  z'^P^'^i 
^apiiTu.  E.  T.  He  that  is  able  to  receive  it,  let  him  receive  it. 
This  expression  is  rather  dark  and  indefinite.  Xupeiv,  amongst 
other  things,  signifies,  to  receive,  to  admit,  to  be  capable  of.    It 


cH.  XIX.  S.  MATTHEW.  m 

is  applied  equally  to  things  speculative,  and,  in  that  case,  de- 
notes, to  understand,  to  comprehend ;  and  to  things  practical, 
in  which  case  it  denotes,  to  resolve,  and  to  execute.  Every  body 
must  perceive  that  the  reference  here  is  to  the  latter  of  these. 

13.  Ijay  kis  hands  upon  them  and  pray.  It  appears  to  have 
been  customary  among  the  Jews,  when  one  prayed  for  another 
who  was  present,  to  lay  his  hand  iipon  the  person's  head. 

17.  JVhy  callest  thou  me  good?  T<  ;tt£  Aevej?  «y«0ev ;  Vul. 
Quid  me  interrogas  de  bono  ?  Five  MSS.  read,  in  conformity 
to  the  Vul.  T<  U.C  fpariti;  srept  m  uyctSa ;  With  this  agree  also  the 
Cop,  the  Arm.  the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  versions.  This  reading  is 
likewise  approved  by  Origen,  and  some  other  ancients  after  him, 
and  also 'by  some  moderns,  amongst  whom  are  Er.  Gro.  Mill, 
and  Ben.  The  other  reading  is,  nevertheless,  in  my  opinion, 
preferable,  on  more  accounts  than  one.  Its  evidence,  from  MSS. 
is  beyond  comparison  superior;  the  versions  on  both  sides  may 
nearly  balance  each  other :  but  the  internal  evidence  arising  from 
the  simplicity  and  connection  of  the  thoughts,  is  entirely  in 
favour  of  the  common  reading.  Nothing  can  be  more  pertinent 
than  to  say,  ••  If  you  believe  that  God  alone  is  good,  why  do  you 
^  call  me  so  r'  whereas  nothing  can  appear  less  pertinent  than, 
*  If  you  believe  that  God  alone  is  good,  why  do  you  consult  me 
'  concerning  the  good  that  you  must  do  ?' 

^  That  life,  rr,v  ^«;,v.  Diss.  X.  P.  V.  §  2. 

20.  The  young  man  replied,  All  these  I  have  observed  from 
my  childhood.  Aiyei  avra  o  ve^vtT-x.'^,  Uctvrx  tocvtoc  £<$«/A»|«,m,;jv  ex.  vfo- 
T^jTa?  /<.«.  E.  T.  The  young  man  saith  unto  him,  All  these  things 
have  I  kept  from  my  youth  up.  As  he  was  a  young  man  who 
made  this  reply,  the  import  of  v£or>;;  must  be  childhood,  as  relat- 
ing to  an  earlier  stage  of  life,  and  is,  therefore,  badly  rendered 
youth. 

23.  It  is  difficuJAfor  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  hea~ 
iien.  By  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  sometimes  understood  in 
^his  history,  the  Christian  church,  then  soon  to  be  erected,  and 
sometimes  the  state  of  the  blest  in  heaven,  after  the  resurrection. 
In  regard  to  this  declaration  of  our  Lord,  I  take  it  to  hold  true, 
in  which  way  soever  the  kingdom  be  understood.  When  it  was 
only  by  means  of  persuasion  that  men  were  brought  into  a  socie- 
ty, hated  and  persecuted  by  all  the  ruling  powers  of  the  earth, 

VOL.    IV.  16 


NOTES  ON  CH.  xrx. 

Jewish  and  Pagan  ;  we  may  rest  assured  that  the  opulent  andthe 
voluptuous  (characters  which,  in  a  dissolute  age,  commonly  go 
together),  who  had  so  much  to  lose,  and  so  much  to  fear,  would 
not,  among  the  hearers  of  the  Gospel,  be  the  most  easily  persuad- 
ed. The  Apostle  James,  ii.  5,  0'.  accordingly  attests  this  to  have 
been  the  fact :  it  was  the  poor  in  this  world  whom  God  hath 
chosen  rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  ;  whereas,  they 
were  the  rich  in  this  world  who  oppressed  them,  dragged  them 
before  their  tribunals,  and  blasphemed  that  loorthy  name  by 
which  they  were  culled.  As  little  can  there  be  any  doubt  of  the 
justness  of  the  sentiment,  in  relation  to  the  state  of  the  blessed 
hereafter,  when  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  and  the  snare  into 
which  it  so  often  inveigles  men,  are  duly  considered.  So  close 
an  analogy  runs  through  all  the  divine  dispensations,  that,  in 
more  instances  than  this,  it  may  be  affirmed  with  truth  that  the 
declarations  of  Scripture  are  susceptible  of  either  interpretation. 

24.  A  camel,  xx/ntiXev.  The.  observes,  that  some  explain  the 
word  as  signifying  here  a  cable.  A  good  authority,  however, 
for  this  signification,  though  adopted  by  Cas.  who  says,  rudcn- 
tem,  I  have  never  seen.  The  frequency  of  the  term,  amongst  all 
sorts  of  writers,  for  representing  the  beast  so  denominated,  is 
undeniable.  Besides,  the  camel,  being  the  largest  animal  they 
were  acquainted  with  in  Judea,  its  name  was  become  proverbial 
for  denoting  any  thing  remarkably  large,  and  a  camePs  passing 
through  a  needless  eye,  came,  by  consequence,  as  appears  from 
some  rabbinical  writings,  to  express  a  thing  absolutely  impossi- 
ble.  Among  the  Babylonians,  in  whose  country  elephants  were 
not  uncommon,  the  phrase  was  an  elephant's  passing  through  a 
needle'' s  eye  ;  but  the  elephant  was  a  stranger  in  Judea. 

^  To  pass  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  ^lu  r^v7r*i(^u.Toi  ^cvpi^e^ 
^leXSetv.  A  great  number  of  MSS.  some  of  the  most  valuable, 
though  neither  the  Al.  nor  the  Cam.  instead  of  ^leXBuv  read  eto-eh- 
6stv,  enter.  Agreeable  to  this  are  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  Eth.  and 
Ara.  versions.  The  Vul.  and  other  versions  follow  the  common 
reading.  Should  the  external  evidence  appear  balanced  on  both 
sides,  the  common  reading  is  preferable,  as  yielding  a  better 
sense.  Passing  through  a  needle's  eye  is  the  circumstance  in 
which  the  impossibility  lies.  There  was  no  occasion  for  suggest- 
ing whither.    There  is  even  something  odd  in  the  suggestion, 


CH.  XX.  S.  MATTHEW.  127 

which  is  very  unlike  the  manner  of  this  author.     Wet.  adopts 
the  alteration. 

28.  That,  at  the  renovation,  o:hen  the  Son  of  Man  shall  be 
seated  on  his  glorious  throne,  ye^  my  follov:ers,  sitting  also 
upon  twelve  thrones,  shall  judge,  ori  bf^m  ot  c6ico>^t/6>}s-xiiT£i  1A.01,  a 
rij  TTuXiyyivea-tcc,  oruv  y,ct6iO-yi  o  vioi  TH  cti^^uTra  stti  B-^ova  ^o^*ii  uvth, 
KctOiFBrrd-e  KUi  hfJLtti;  ctti  Suhtcot,  S-^ova^,  x*<vevT£5.  E.  T.  Ye  which  havc 
follozoed  me  in  the  regeneration,  zshcn  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit 
in  the  throve  of  his  glory,  ye  shall  also  sit  tipon  twelve  thrones, 
judging.  In  regard  to  which  version,  two  things  occur  to  be 
observed;  1st,  That  a  r-zi  frmXiy/iteTiec  (in  which  there  is  an  am- 
biguity, as  was  remarked  in  Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  22.)  is  rendered, 
as  though  it  belonged  to  the  preceding  clause,  uKoXaU'^uvrei  fMt, 
whereas  the  scope  of  the  passage  requires,  that  it  be  construed 
with  the  clause  which  follows  it.  2dly,  That  the  word  TraXtyyae^^ 
c'tK  is,  in  this  place,  better  translated  renovation.  We  are  ac- 
customed to  apply  the  term  regeneration  solely  to  the  cenver. 
sion  of  individuals ;  whereas  its  relation  here  is  to  the  general 
state  of  things.  As  they  were  wont  to  denominate  the  creation 
yevea-n;,  a  remarkable  restoration,  or  renovation,  of  the  face  of 
things,  was  very  suitably  termed  TrxXiyyivec-iet.  The  return  of  the 
Israelites  to  their  own  land,  after  the  Babylonish  captivity,  is  so 
named  by  Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian.  What  was  said  on 
verse  23.  holds  equally  in  regard  to  the  promise  we  have  here. 
The  principal  completion  will  be  at  the  general  resurrection, 
when  there  will  be,  in  the  most  important  sense,  a  renovation, 
or  regeneration  of  heaven  and  earth,  when  all  things  shall  be- 
come new;  yet,  in  a  subordinate  sense,  it  may  be  said  to  have 
been  accomplished  when  God  came  to  visit,  in  judgment,  that 
-guilty  land;  when  the  old  dispensation  was  utterly  abolished^ 
and  succeeded  by  the  Christian  dispensation,  into  which  the  Gen- 
tiles, from  every  quarter,  as  w^ell  as  Jews,  were  called  and  acU 
in  it  ted. 


Hlf 


CHAPTER  XX. 

1.  This  chapter,  in  the  original,  begins,  'Ou/nu,  yafi.     The  yap 
shows  manifestly  that  what  follows  was   spoken  In   illustra. 


128  NOTES  ON  cir.  xx, 

tion  of  the  sentence  with  which  the  preceding  chapter  concludes, 
and  wliich,  therefore,  ought  not  to  have  been  disjoined  from  this? 
parable.  The  Vul.  has  no  particle  answering  to  yx^.  In  that 
version  the  chapter  begins  thus,  Simile  est  regnum  ca'lorum. 
But  this  does  not  seem  to  have  sprung  from  a  ditixrcnt  reading, 
as  there  is  no  diversity  here  in  the  Gr.  MSS,  nor,  for  aqght  I  caii 
learn,  in  ancient  translations.  1  rather  think  that  the  omission 
has  happened  after  the  division  into  chapters,  and  has  arisen 
from  a  notion  of  the  impropriety  of  beginning  a  chapter  with  the 
causal  particle.  It  adds  to  the  probability  of  this,  that  several 
old  La.  MSS.  have  the  conjunction  as  well  as  the  Gr. 

2,    The  administration.     Diss.  V.  P.  I-  §  7. 

6.  Unemployed^  a^yni,  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  2  other  MSS- 
not  in  the  Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions, 

7.  And  ye  shall  receive  what  is  reasonable^  }^  o  exv  tj  Six-uiet 
Xni^i<!-B-e.  This  clause  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS. 
And  there  is  nothing  answering  to  it  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax. 
versions. 

13.  Friend,  Irxtpi.     Diss.  XH.  P.  I.  §  11. 

15-  May  not  I  do  zehut  I  will  with  my  oxsn?  rnc  e|£s-/  ttoj  Ttrait;^ 
c-iii  0  B-£>M  £v  ro(;  i/iLOK; ;  Vul.  Non  licet  mihi  quod  vulo  facere  ? 
Here  there  is  no  translation  of  the  words  fv  toic,  s/^sij,  though  of 
manifest  inlportaace  to  the  ssnse.  There  is  the  same  defect  in 
the  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions,  but  not  in  any  Gr.  MS.  that  has  yet 
appeared,  nor  in  any  other  translation. 

22.  Undergo  an  immersion  like  that  which  I  must  undergo^ 
TO  ^ciTrric-f^x  0  iyu  fixTrrK^oittcit  liaTi-riTB-ijvcci.  E.  T.  To  be  baptised 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptised  unth.  The  primitive  signi- 
fication of  (sx9rTirjn,-i  is  immersion,  of  /3o5^r(^£(»,  to  immerse, 
plunge,  or  overwhelm.  The  noun  ought  never  to  be  rendered 
havtism,  nor  the  verb  to  baptise,  but  when  employed  in  relation 
i  a  religious  ceremony,  .j^ji^verb  ^xTrri^av  sometimes,  and 
/jctTTifv,  which  is  synonymous^^nen  occurs  in  the  Sep.  and  Apo- 
cryphal writings,  and  is  always  rendered  in  the  common  version 
by  one  or  other  of  these  words,  to  dip,  to  wash,  to  plunge. 
When  the  original  expression,  therefore,  is  rendered  in  familiar 
language,  there  appears  nothing  harsh  or"  extraordinary  in  the 


CH.  XX.  S.  MATTHEW.  129 

metaphor.  Phrases  like  these,  to  be  overwhelmed  with  grief,  to 
be  immersed  in  affliction,  will  be  found  common  in  most  langua- 
ges. 

It  is  proper  here  farther  to  observe,  that  the  whole  of  this 
clause,  and  that  corresponding  to  it,  in  the  subsequent  verse, 
are  in  this  Gospel  wanting  in  the  Vul.  and  several  MSS.  As  the) 
are  found,  however,  in  the  far  greater  number  both  of  ancient 
versions,  and  of  MSS.  and  perfectly  coincide  with  the  scope  of 
the  passage,  1  did  not  think  there  was  weight  enough  in  what 
might  be  urged,  on  the  opposite  side,  to  warrant  the  omission  of 
them  ;  neither  indeed  does  Wet.  But  Gro.  and  Mill  arc  of  thr 
contrary  opinion. 

23.  I  cannot  give,  unless  to  those,  yji  tr'n  e^-cv  ^avxi,  szAa'  o<?. 
E.  T.  Is  not  mine  to  give  ;  but  it  shall  be  given  to  them.  The 
conjunction  caXx.,  when,  as  in  this  place,  it  is  not  followed  by  a 
■verb,  but  by  a  noun  or  pronoun,  is  generally  to  be  understood 
as  of  the  same  import  with  u  (mi,  nisi,  unless,  except.  Otherwise, 
the  verb  must  be  supplied,  as  is  done  here,  in  the  common  ver- 
sion. But  as  such  an  ellipsis  is  uncommon,  recourse  ought  not 
to  be  had  to  it  without  necessity.  Of  the  interpretation  I  have 
given  of  the  conjunction  «AAse,  we  have  an  example,  Mr.  ix.  8. 
compared  with  Mt.  xvii.  8.  Vul.  Non  est  meum  dare  vobis. 
See  Mr.  x.  40.  N. 

26.  Servant,  SictKovoi.  E.  T.  Minister. 'i        In  the  proper  and 

27.  Slave,  SaXoi;.  E.  T.  Servant.  i  primitive  sense  of  <J(- 
«Kove5,  it  is  a  servant  who  attends  his  master,  waits  on  him  at  ta- 
ble, and  is  always  near  his  person,  to  obey  his  orders,  which  was 
accounted  a  more  creditable  kind  of  service.  By  the  wordJyAss 
is  not  only  meant  a  servant  in  general  (whatever  kind  of  work 
he  be  employed  in),  but  also  a  slave.  It  is  solely  from  the  scope 
and  connection  that  we  ijiust  judge,  when  it  should  be  rendered 
in  the  one  way,  and  when  in  the  other.  In  the  passage  before 
us,  the  view  in  both  verses  is  to  signify,  that  the  true  dignity  of 
the  Christian  will  arise  more  from  the  service  he  does  to  others, 
than  the  power  he  possesses  over  them.  We  are  to  judge,  there- 
fore, of  the  value  of  the  words  from  the  import  of  those  they  are 
contrasted  with.  And  as  desiring  to  be  great  is  a  more  mode- 
rate ambition  than  desiring  to  be  chief,  we  naturally  conclude, 
that  as  the  word  opposed  to  the  former  should  be  expressive  of 


\3Q  NOTES  ON 


CK<  XX  £, 


some  of  the  inferior  stations  in  life,  that  opposed  to  the  latter 
must  be  expressive  of  the  lowest.  When  this  sufficiently  suits 
t  ordinary  signification  of  the  words,  there  can  hardly  remain 
any  doubt.  As  this  is  manifestly  the  case  here,  I  did  not  know 
any  words  in  our  language  by  which  I  could  better  express  a  dif- 
ference in  degree,  so  clearly  intended,  than  the  words  servant 
and  slave.  The  word  minister  is  now  appropriated  to  the  ser- 
vants, not  of  private  masters,  but  of  the  public.  It  is  from  the 
distinctions  in  private  life,  well  known  at  the  time,  that  our 
Lord's  illustrations  are  borrowed. 

31.  Charged  them  to  be  silent^  fxertiMiTsv  xvrcii  'vx  c-iuTr-niruTiv. 
E.  T.  Rebuked  them,  because  theij  should  hold  their  peace.  The 
historian  surely  did  not  mean  to  blame  the  poor  men  for  their 
importunity.  Our  Lord,  on  the  contrary,  commends  such  im- 
portunity, sometimes  expressly  in  words,  and  always  by  making 
the  application  successful.  But  to  render  Ivx  because,  appears 
quite  unexampled.  It  answers  commonly  to  the  La.  iit,  some- 
times to  ita  lit,  but  never,  as  far  as  I  remember,  to  quia.  It  is 
rendered  ut  in  this  passage  in  all  the  La.  versions.  The  import 
of  ivx  ascertains  the  sense  of  i7FiTifi.<x,a),  which  is  frequently  trans- 
lated to  charge,  even  in  the  common  version.  In  proof  of  this, 
several  places  might  be  produced  ;  but  I  shall  only  refer  the  rea- 
der to  the  parallel  passage  in  Mr.  x.  48.  where  BTrsrif^uv  avra  rroX- 
^01  Iva.  c-iuTTtjo-t]  is  translated.  Many  charged  him  that  he  should 
hold  his  peace  ;  and  to  Mr.  ix.  25.  N. 

CHAPTER  XXI, 

4.  Now  all  this  zoas  done,  that  the  words  of  the  projihct  might 
he  fulfilled,  mro  h  oXov  yeyony,  ha  7rXtj^u6tj  rs  ^tiiei  Six  tu  7r^t(py,rs. 
Our  Lord's  perfect  knowledge  of  all  that  the  prophets  had  pre. 
dieted  concerning  him,  gives  a  propriety  to  this  manner  of  ren- 
dering these  words,  when  every  thing  is  done  by  his  direction, 
which  it  could  not  have  in  any  other  circumstances. 

6.  The  daughter  of  Zion,  that  is,  Jerusalem,  so  named  from 
Mount  Zion,  which  was  in  the  city,  and  on  which  was  erected  a 
fortress  for  its  defence.  This  poetical  manner  of  personifying 
the  cities  and  countries,  to  which  they  addressed  themselves,  was 
familiar  to  the  prophets. 

2  From  the  other  Evangelists  it  would  appear,  that  our  Lord 
Tode  only  on  the  colt;  from  this  passage,  we  should  be  apt  ii> 


ctt.  XXI.  S.  MATTHEW.  131 

think  that  both  had  been  used.  But  it  is  not  unusual  with  the 
sacred  authors,  when  either  the  nature  of  the  thing  spoken  of, 
or  the  attendant  circumstances,  are  sufficient  for  precluding  mis- 
takes, to  employ  the  plural  number  for  the  singular. 

7.  Covering  them  zcith  their  mantles,  f7ri6r,K.u,v  tTrxm  avrut  rx, 
IfAttrtu.  ecvrm.  The  Sy.  interpreter,  either  from  a  different  read- 
ing in  the  copies  he  used,  or  (which  is  more  likely)  from  a  de- 
sire to  express  the  sense  more  clearly,  has  rendered  it  thei/  laid 
their  mantles  on  the  colt. 

9.  Blessed  be  he  that  comelh,  ev^^ytif^ev'^  o  i^y^of^twi.  E.  T. 
Blessed  is  he  that  cor.ieth.  But  acclamations  of  this  kind  are 
always  of  the  nature  of  prayers,  or  ardent  wishes ;  like  the  Fr. 
Vive  le  roy,  or  our  God  save  the  king.  Nay,  the  words  con- 
nected are  entirely  of  this  character.  Ilosanna  to  the  son  of 
David,  is  equivalent  to  God  preserve  the  Son  of  David  ;  and 
consequently  whut  follows  is  the  same  as  prosperous  be  the  reign 
of  him  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

^  In  the  highest  heaven.     L.  ii.  14.  N. 

12.  The  temple,  n  h^ov.  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  word  here 
is  not  ystoi.  By  the  latter,  was  meant  properly  the  house,  includ- 
ing only  the  vestibule,  the  holy  place  or  sanctuary,  and  the  most 
holy.  Whereas,  the  former  comprehended  all  the  courts.  It 
was  in  the  outermost  court  that  this  sort  of  traffic  was  exercised. 
For  want  of  peculiar  names  in  European  languages,  these  two 
are  confounded  in  most  modem  translations.  To  the  vxog,  or 
temple,  strictly  so  calle-l,  none  of  those  people  had  access,  not 
even  our  Lord  himself,  ^ecause  not  of  the  posterity  of  Aaron. 
L.  i.  9.  N.  It  may  be  thought  strange  that  the  Pharisees,  Avhose 
sect  then  predominated,  and  who  much  affected  to  patronize  ex- 
ternal decorum  in  religion,  should  have  permitted  so  gross  a  vio- 
lation of  decency.  But,  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  merchan- 
dize was  transacted  in  the  court  of  the  Gentiles,  a  place  allotted 
for  the  devotions  of  the  proselytes  of  the  gate,  those  who  having 
renounced  idolatry,  worshipped  the  true  God,  but  did  not  sub- 
ject themselves  to  circumcision  and  the  ceremonial  law.  To  the 
religious  service  of  such,  the  narrow-souled  Pharisees  paid  no 
regard.  The  place  they  did  not  account  holy.  It  is  even  not 
improbable  that  in  order  to  put  an  indignity  on  those  half.con- 
formists,  they  have  introduced,  and  promoted,  this  flagrant  abuse- 


132  NOTES  ON 


CH.  xx;» 


The  zeal  of  our  Lord,  which  breathed  nothing  of  the  pharisaical 
malignity,  tended  as  much  to  unite  and  conciliate,  as  theirs  tend-' 
ed  to  divide  and  alienate.  Nor  was  there  any  thing  in  the  leaven 
of  the  Pharisees,  which  he  more  uniformly  opj.osed,  than  that 
assuming  spirit,  the  surest  badge  of  the  sectary,  which  would 
confine  the  favour  of  the  universal  parent  to  those  of  his  own 
sect,  denomination,  or  country.  See  ch.  viii.  11,  12.  L.  iv.  23, 
&c.  X.  29,  kc. 

.     13.   A  house.     Mr.  XI,  17. 

2  Of  robbers,  Xr,^m.  E.  T.  Of  thieves.     Diss.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

25.  Whence  had  John  authoritii to  baptise?  to  ^ot,7TTt<riA.ot.  luctv^ 
va  -TTo&iv  tjv ;  E.  T.  The  baptism  of  John^  zchence  teas  it  ?  But  a 
man's  baptism  means,  with  us,  solely  his  partaking  of  that  ordi- 
nance; whereas  this  question  relates,  not  to  John's  receiving 
baptism,  but  to  his  right  to  enjoin  and  confer  baptism.  The 
question,  as  it  stands  in  the  common  version,  conveys,  to  the  un- 
learned reader,  a  sense  totally  dilferent  from  the  author's.  It 
sounds,  as  though  it  had  been  put,  '  Was  John  baptised  by  an 
'  angel,  sent  from  heaven  on  purpose,  or  by  an  ordinary  man  ?' 
In  all  such  cases,  if  one  would  neither  be  unintelligible,  nor  ex- 
press a  false  meaning,  one  must  not  attempt  to  trace  the  words 
of  the  original.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  14. 

31.  The  first,  o  ■xpur'^.  In  the  old  Itc.  it  was  novissimus. 
The  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  and  Ara.  read  in  the  same  manner.  In  the 
Cam.  and  two  other  Gr.  MSS.  it  is  o  eo-^ctroi.  This  is  one  of  those 
readings  which  it  would  require  more  than  ordinary  external 
evidence  to  authorise. 

32.  In  the  rsay  of  sancttfj/,  bv  o^m  Siy.ctto6-vvi}(;.  E.  T.  In  the  zeay 
of  righteousness.  This  is  one  proof  among  many  of  the  vai  ious 
significations  given  to  the  word  ^iKMos-wyi  in  the  N.  T.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  this  is  spoken  principally  in  allusion  to  the 
austerities  of  John's  manner  of  living  in  the  desert,  in  respect  of 
food,  raiment,  and  lodging.  The  word  sanctity,  in  our  language, 
though  not  quite  so  common,  suits  the  meaning  here  better  than 
righteousness. 

33.  Went  abroad,  etTTiS'ijin.tie-ev.  E.  T.  Went  info  a  far  coun- 
try. This  is  an  exact  translation  of  what  is  said  of  the  prodigal, 
L.  XV.  13.  uTe^iffMiinv  em  ^u^xv  i^xKcc^ctVy  but  not  of  what  is  said 


cH.xxr.  S.  MATTHEW.  133 

here.  The  word  «t^f<J'>j^))T;v  implies  barely  that  it  was  a  foreign 
country  he  went  to;  nothing  is  added  to  inform  us  whether  it 
WAS  far  or  near.  * 

35.  Drove  axcay  with  stones  another.)  iv  ^e  eAiSaeoA^js'^v.     E.  T. 

Stoned  another.     But  XtSa'^.oXeiv  does  not  always  denote  to  kill  Y 

by  stoniiia:,  as  the  Eng.  word  stoned  seems  to  imply.  That  it 
does  not  signify  so  in  this  place,  is  evident  from  the  distinctioa 
made  in  the  treatment  given,  dv  St  «^£xt£<v«>.  •■ 

36.  More  respectable^  TrXen^xi  rm  Trpurm.  E.  T.  More  than 
(he  first.  ttXuovxi;  means  )}iore  either  in  number.,  or  in  value.  As 
vouchers  for  the  latter  use  in  the  N.  T.  see  M(.  v.  20.  vi  25.  xii. 
41,  42.  Mr.  xii.  33.  L.  xi.  31,  32  Heb.  xi.  4.  The  Heb.  rab 
signifies  both  manij  and  great.  The  reasons  which  have  induced 
me,  on  reconsidering  this  passage,  to  prefer,  with  Markland,  the 
2d  meaning,  are  these.  1.  If  the  number  of  servants  first  sent 
liad  been  mentioned,  or  even  alluded  to  by  an  epithet  as  mant/, 
orfezo,  ttXhovxi;  could  not  have  been  rendered  otherwise  than  in 
greater  number;  but  not,  where  there  is  neither  mention  of 
number,  nor  allusion  to  it.  2.  A  climax  is  evidently  intended 
by  the  historian,  in  representing  the  husbandmen,  as  proceed- 
ing from  evil  to  worse.  Now  the  climax  is  much  better  sup- 
ported by  making  vXnovxc,  relate  to  dignity,  than  by  making  it 
refer  to  number.  He  first  sent  some  inferior  servants ;  after- 
wards, the  most  respectable;  last  of  all,  his  son. 

41.  He  IS  ill  put  those  wretches  to  a  isretched  death.,  Kcmas  kx- 
acoi  KTToXia-et  avrHi.  E.  T.  He  zsill  miserablif  destroy  those  v:ick. 
ed  men.  This  idiom  is  entirely  Grecian.  Lucian  says,  y.a.x,oi  xa- 
uMi  dTToXavroii.,  Icaromenippiis.  Several  other  examples  have  beea 
produced  by  Sc.  and  Wa.  I  have  been  lucky  enough  here  to  ex- 
press the  meaning,  without  losing  the  paronomasia,  which  is  not 
without  its  emphasis.  IVrctches  and  zcretchcd,  like  K^y.j^s  and 
KXKiui,  are  equally  susceptible  of  both  significations,  zcicked  and 
miserable.  It  is  not  possible  always,  in  translating,  to  convey 
both  the  sense  and  the  trope.  And  when  both  cannot  be  done^ 
no  reasonable  person  will  be  at  a  loss  which  to  prefer. 

43.  Knozo  therefore.  This  is  one  of  the  clearest  predictions 
of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles, 
which  we  have  in  this  history, 

^  To  a  nation,  (.hu.  Some  render  the  word  To  the  Gentiles. 
That  the  Gentiles  are  meant,  cannot  be  doubted.  But  the  Ena;. 
VOL.  \v.  \7  ■■ 


134  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxii. 

(especially  where  there  is  no  risk  of  mistake)  ought  not  to  be 
more  explicit  than  the  Gr.  Had  it  been  our  Lord's  intention 
ilatly  to  tell  them  this,  his  expression  would  have  been,  roii  e^vta-t. 
The  article  and  the  plural  number  are  invariably  used  in  such 
cases.  They  are  here  called  a  nation,  because,  though  collected 
out  of  many  nations,  they  will  as  christians  constitute  one  na- 
tion, the  4^©-  «y«jv  mentioned  1  Pet.  ii.  9. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

12.  Friend,  crxipe.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 

14.  For  there  are  mani/  called,  but  few  chosen,  -TvaXkai  yetf  eiirt 
x.X>}rot,  oXiytn  ^s  £KXtx.rot.  E.  T.  For  many  are  called,  but  few 
are  chosen.  The  difference  in  these  two  ways  of  rendering  is, 
to  aj^pearance,  inconsiderable,  but  it  is  real.  Let  it  be  observ-. 
ed,  that  the  Gr.  words  x.?iifroi  and  exXeKToi  are  merely  adjectives; 
called  and  chosen,  in  the  E.  T.  can  be  understood  no  otherwise 
than  as  participles,  insomuch  that,  if  we  were  to  turn  the  En^ 
into  Gr.  we  should  use  neither  of  those  words,  but  say,  Uoxm 
yo5^  (tm  xsy-Xiji^evot,  oXiyoi  Je  tx.Xi>iiyiA.i\oi,  which  does  not  perfectly 
coincide  in  meaning  with  the  expression  of  the  Evangelist.  I  ac- 
knowledge, it  is  impossible  to  mark  the  difierence,  with  equal 
precision,  in  any  language,  which  has  only  one  term  for  both 
uses.  The  distinction  with  us  is  similar,  and  nowise  inferior 
to  that  which  is  found  between  Olivetan's,  and  more  modern  Fr. 
versions.  The  former  says,  Plusieurs  sont  appelles,  mais  peu 
sont  eliis  ;  the  latter,  II  y  a  beaucoup  d^ appelles,  mais  peu  d'elus. 

16.  Ilerodians.  Probably  partizans  of  Herod  Antipas,  te- 
trarch  of  Galilee ;  those  who  were  for  the  continuance  of  the 
royal  power  in  the  descendants  of  Herod  the  Great.  This  was 
an  object  which,  it  appears,  the  greater  part  of  the  nation,  espe- 
cially the  Pharisees,  did  not  favour.  They  considered  that  fami- 
ly, not  indeed  as  idolaters,  but  as  great  conformists  to  the  idola. 
trous  customs  of  both  Greeks  and  Romans,  whose  favour  it  spar- 
ed no  pains  to  secure.  The  notion,  adopted  by  some,  that  the 
Ilergdians  were  those  who  believed  Herod  to  be  the  Messiah, 


CH.  XXII.  S.MATTHEW.  135 

hardly  deserves  to  be  mentioned,  as  there  is  no  evidence  that 
such  an  opinion  was  maintained  by  any  body. 

18.  Malice^  7rovr,piccv.     Ch.  XXV.  26.  N. 

^  Dissemblers^  uTreK^irai.  E.  T.  Ilj/pocriles.     Diss.  III.  §  24. 

19.  A  denarius.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  4. 

23.  PVho  say  thai  there  is  no  future  life,  ot  Xeyovrec,  iA.n  nvxt  cti- 
aK-xTiv.   E.  T.  Which  say  that  there  is  no  resurrection.   The  word 
«v£«ri«'-»s,  or  rather  the  phrase,  av«r«««  t»v  vsKpm,  is  indeed  the 
common  term,  by  which  the  resurrection,  properly  so  called,  is 
denominated  in  the  N.  T.     Yet  this  is  neither  the  only,  nor  the 
primitive,  import  of  the  w  ord  xvxi-ocs-n.     It  denotes  simply,  being 
raised  from  inactivity  to  action,  or  from  obscurity  to  eminence, 
or  a  i-eturn  to  such  a  state,  after  an  interruption.  The  verb  «v/s:>;- 
fi.t  has  the  like  latitude  of  signification  ;  and  both  words  are  used 
in  this  extent  by  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.  as  well  as  by  the  Se- 
venty.    Agreeably  therefore  to  the  original  import,  rising  from 
a  seat  is  properly  termed  «v«r«y(?,  so  is  azcaking  out  of  sleep,  or 
promotion  from  an  inferior  condition.     The  Avord  occurs  in  this 
last  sense,  L.  ii.  34.  In  this  view,  when  applied  to  the  dead,  the 
word  denotes,  properly,  no  more  than  a  rencical  of  life  to  them, 
in  whatever  manner  this  happen.     Nay,  that  the  Pharisees  them- 
selves did  not  universally  mean,   by  this  term,  the  re-union  of 
soul  and  body,  is  evident  from  the  account   which  the  Jewish 
historian  gives  of  their  doctrine,  as  well  as  from  some  passages 
in  the  Gospels  ;   of  both  which  I  had  occasion  to  take  notice  in 
Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19.     To  say,  therefore,  in  Eng.  in  giving  the 
tenets  of  the  Sadducces,  that  thejj  deny  the  resurrection,  is,  at 
least,  to  give  a  very  defective  account  of  their  sentiments  on  this 
very  topic.     It  is  notorious,  not  only  from  Josephus,  and  other 
Jewish  writers,  but  from  what  is  said.  Acts  xxiii.   8.  that  they 
denied  the  existence  of  angels,  and  all  separate  spirits.     In  this, 
they  went  much  farther  than  the  Pagans,   who  did  indeed  deny 
what  Christians  ca.\\  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  acknow- 
ledged a  state  after  death,  wherein  the  souls  of  the  departed  exist, 
and  receive  the  reward,  or  the  punishment,  of  the  actions  done 
upon  the  earth.      But  not  only  is  the  version  here  given  a  justor 
representation  of  theSadducean  hypothesis,  at  the  same  time  that 
it  is  entirely  conformable  to  the  sense  of  the  word,  but  it  is  the 
only  version  which  makes  our  Lord's  argument  appear  pertinent. 


136  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxii. 

and  levelled  against  the  doctrine  he  wanted  to  refute.  In  the 
Common  version,  they  are  said  to  deny  the  resurrection,  that  is, 
that  the  soul  and  the  body  shall  hereafter  be  reunited  ;  and  our 

Lord  brings  an  argument  from  the  Pentateuch  to  prove ■ 

What  ?  not  that  they  shall  be  reunited  (to  this  it  has  not  even 
the  most  distant  relation),  but  that  the  soul  survives  the  body, 
and  subsists  after  the  body  is  dissolved.  This  many  would  have 
admitted,  who  denied  the  resurrection.  Yet  so  evidently  did  it 
Strike  at  the  root  of  the  scheme  of  the  Sadducees,  that  they  were 
silenced  by  it,  and,  to  the  conviction  of  the  hearers,  confuted. 
Now  this,  I  will  take  upon  me  to  say,  could  not  have  happened, 
if  the  fundamental  error  of  the  Sadducees  had  been,  barely,  the 
denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  not  the  denial  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  or  rather  of  its  actual  subsistence  after 
death,  for  I  speak  not  here  of  what  some  call  the  natural  immor- 
tality of  the  soul.  If  possible,  t)ie  words  in  L.  xx.  38.  7r««rf5 
uvra  ^*-;v,  make  it  still  more  evident,  that  our  Lord  considered 
this  as  all  that  was  incumbent  on  one  who  would  confute  the  Sad- 
ducees, to  prove,  namely,  that  the  soul  still  continued  to  live 
after  the  person's  natural  death.  Now,  if  this  was  the  subversion 
of  Sadduceism,  Sadduceism  must  have  consisted  in  denying  that 
the  soul  continues  to  live,  separated  from  the  body,  or,  which  is 
nearly  the  same,  in  affirming,  that  the  dissolution  of  the  union  is 
the  destruction  of  the  living  principle.  It  may  be  objected,  that, 
in  v.  28.  there  is  a  clear  reference  to  Avhat  is  specially  called  the 
resurrecfion,  which,  by  the  way,  is  still  clearer  from  the  manner 
wherein  it  is  expressed,  Mr.  xii.  23,  ev  t;j  av  uvxrotrety  otm  aicTu- 
m.  This  mode  of  expression,  so  like  a  tautology,  appears,  to  me, 
to  have  been  adopted  by  that  Evangelist,  on  purpose  to  show, 
that  he  used  the  word  «v<«5-«5*'«  here,  in  a  more  confined  sense  than 
he  had  done  in  the  preceding  part  of  the  story.  The  Sadducee, 
as  is  common  with  disputants,  thinks  it  sulTicient,  for  support- 
ing his  own  doctrine,  to  show  some  absurdity  in  that  of  his  an- 
tagonist. And  he  considers  it  as  furnishing  him  with  a  better 
handle  for  doing  this,  to  introduce  upon  the  scene,  the  woman, 
and  the  seven  claimants,  all  at  once,  who  are  no  sooner  raised 
than  they  engage  in  contests  about  their  property  in  her.  But 
this  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  interpret  our  Lord's  words, 
and  the  words  of  the  historian,  relating  to  the  opinions  of  the 
sect,  in  all  the  latitude  which  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  the 


^.  MATTHEW,  137 

context,  evidently  show  to  belong  to  thern.  The  only  modern 
version  1  have  seen,  wherein  «v«s-aso-(?  is  rendered  future  lije,  is 
the  Eng.  An. 

24.  Leave  no  children,  ^n  ex^'  '"f"*^-  ^^''-  -'^■''"  habens  fiUum. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  this  version  has  procerd-.-d  from  a 
different  reading,  as  it  is  quite  unsupported  either  by  MS-i.  or  by 
other  translations.  But  it  agrees  exactly  with  the  H-^).  ii--  ^he 
passage  of  Deut.  xxv.  5.  referred  to.  The  words  are  thor^  -h  r« 
la.  The  sense  is  the  same  in  both,  as  in  several  instances  the 
Heb.  hen  is  used  for  a  child  indefinitely,  of  either  sex.  In  ihc 
place  quoted,  the  words  are  rendered  in  the  Vul.  absque  liber Is^ 
and  in  the  E.  T.  have  no  child. 

32.  God  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  ay.  sr'v  'o  ©;«?,  e-a-s  vjxc^v. 
Vul.   ^on  est  Deus  mortaorum.     The  Sy.  Sax.  and  Cop.  agree 
Avith  the  Vul.   in   using  no  word  answering  to  the  first  'o  ©.-5, 
which  is  aiso  ommitted  in  the  Cam.     Dr.  Priestley  says  [Har- 
mony,  sect.  Ixxii.],  "This  argument  of  our  Saviour's  evidently 
"  goes  on  the  supposition  of  there  being  no  intermediate  state." 
Now,  to  me,  it  is  evident,  that  the  direct  scope  of  the  argument 
is  to  prove,  that  there  is  such  a  state,  or,  at  least,  that  the  soul 
survives  the  body,  and  is  capable  of  enjoyment  after  the  natural 
death.     The  reason  which  the  Doctor  has  subjoined,  is,  if  pos- 
sible, more  wonderful  still.     "  For  admitting,"  says  he,   "  this 
"  [intermediate  state],  God  might,  with  the  strictest  propriety, 
"  be  said  to  be  the  God  of  those  patriarchs,  as  they  were  then 
"  living,  and  happy,  though  their  bodies  were  in   the  grave,'' 
Is  it  then  a  maxim  with  this  learned  gentleman,  that  nothing  can 
be  admitted  which  would  show  the  words  to  be  strictly  proper, 
and  the  reasoning  conclusive?  So  it  appears  ;  for,  in  perfect  con. 
sistency  vvith  this  maxim,  he  concludes  his  explanation  (if  I  may 
so  call  it)  with  these  remarkable  words:  "  There  does  not,  how- 
"  ever,  seem  to  be  much  force  in  the  argument,  except  with  the 
'"  Jews,  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  and  who  admitted  simi^-ir 
"  constructions  of  Scripture.    For,  though  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
<'  Jacob,  were  perishetl,  the  person  who  spake  to  Moses  might 
"  make  himself  known  to  him,  as  he  whom  they  had   worship. 
"  ped."      If  so,  this  critic  should  have  said,  not  that  there  was 
not  much  force,  but  that  there  was  no  force  at  all,  in  the  argu. 
ment.    The  whole  then  of  this  memorable  confutation,  amounts, 


138  NOTES  ON  CH.  xxn. 

according  to  him,  to  no  more  than  an  argument  ad  hominem,as 
logicians  term  it,  that  is,  a  fallacious  argument,  which  really 
proves  nothing,  and  is  adopted  solely,  because  the  medium, 
though  false,  is  admitted  by  the  antagonist,  who  is  therefore  not 
qualified  to  detect  the  fallacy.  But  unluckily,  in  the  present 
case,  if  the  argument  be  inconclusive,  it  has  not  even  that  poor 
advantage  of  being  an  argument  ad  hominem.  The  Doctor 
should  have  remembered  that  our  Lord,  in  this  instance,  was  dis- 
puting with  Sadducees,  who  paid  no  regard  to  the  traditionary 
interpretations,  and  mystical  constructions,  of  Scripture,  admit- 
ted by  the  Pharisees.  Yet  even  these  Sadducees  were  put  to 
silence  by  it.  The  truth  is,  our  Lord's  argument  stands  in  no 
need  of  such  a  lame  apology,  as  that  it  is  an  argument  ad  homi- 
nem. Consider  it  as  it  lies,  without  the  aid  of  artificial  com. 
nients,  and  it  will  be  found  evidently  decisive  of  the  great  point 
in  dispute  with  the  Sadducees,  whether  the  soul  perished  with 
the  body.  '  God,'  says  our  Lord,  '  when  he  appeared  to  Moses 
'  in  the  bush,  which  was  long  after  the  death  of  the  Patriarchs, 

*  said  to  him,  /  am  the  God  of  Abraham^  and  of  Isaac,  and  of 
'  Jacob  ;  now  God  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  of  those  who,  being 

*  destitute  of  life,  and  consequently  of  sensibility,  can  neither 

*  know  nor  honour  him  ;  he  is  the  God  of  those  only  who  love 

*  and  adore  him,  and  are,  by  consequence,  alive.'  These  Patri- 
archs, therefore,  though  dead,  in  respect  of  us  who  enjoy  their 
presence  here  no  longer,  are  alive,  in  respect  of  God,  whom  they 
still  serve  and  worship.  However  true  then  it  may  be,  as  the 
Doctor  remarks,  that  "  though  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
"  were  perished,  the  person  who  spoke  to  Moses  might  make 
''  himself  known  to  him,  as  he  whom  they  had  worshipped," 
this  remark  does  not  suit  the  present  case  :  nor  could  the  words 
of  God,  on  that  supposition,  have  been  the  same  with  those 
which  we  find  recorded  by  the  sacred  penman.  For  God,  as  in 
the  passage  quoted,  made  himself  known  to  Moses,  not  as  he 
whom  the  Patriarchs  had  worshipped,  but  expressly  as  he  whom 
they  then  worshipped;  for  he  says  not,  I  was  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham, and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  to  wit,  when  the  Patriarchs 
lived  upon  the  earth,  but,  I  am  their  God  at  present.  It  is  ma- 
nifestly from  this  particularity  in  the  expression,  which  cannot, 
without  straining,  be  adapted,  either  to  the  past  or  to  the  future, 
that  Jesus  concludes  they  were  then  living.  Nor  let  it  be  thought 


CH.  XXII.  S.  MATTHEW.  139 

too  slight  a  circumstance  for  an  argument  of  this  impsrtance  to 
rest  upon.    The  argument  is,  in  eifect,  founded,  as  ail  reasoning 
from  revelation,  in  the  veracity  of  God  ;  but  the  import  of  what 
God  says,  as  related  in  Scripture,  we  must,  not  in  this  instance 
only,  but  in  every  instance,  infer  from  the  ordinary  construction 
and  idioms  of  language.    When  the  Creator,  in  treating  with  his 
creatures,  condescends  to  employ  their  speech  ;  as  his  end  is  to 
inform,  and  not  to  deceive,  his  words  must  be  interpreted  by  the 
common  rules  of  speaking,  in  the  same  way  wherein  we  should 
interpret  what  is  said  by  any  of  our  fellow-creatures.     Now,  if 
we  should  overhear  one  man  say  to  another,  '  I  wish  to  have  ygu 
'  in  my  service,  and  to  be  your  master,  as  I  am  your  father's, 
'  and  your  grandfather's,  master;'  should  we  not  conclude  that 
the  persons  spoken  of  are  alive,  and  his  servants  at  this  very 
moment  ?   And  would  it  not  be  reasonable  to  insist  that,  if  they 
were  dead,  his  expression  would  be,   '  As  I  was  your  father's, 
and  your  grandfather's  master?'  This  is,  in  effect,  the  explana- 
tion given  of  the  reasoning  in  this  passage,  by  the  most  ancient 
Gr.  expositors,  Chr.  Euth.  and  The.    I  know  it  is  urged,  on  the 
other  side,  that  though  the  verb  eif^i   is  used  in  the  Gr.  of  the 
Evangelist,  and  in  the  Sep.  there  is  nothing  which  answers  to  it 
in  the  Heb.  and  consequently,  the  words  of  Moses  might  as  well 
have  been  rendered  /  zoas^  as  /  am.    But  this  consequence  is  not 
just.    The  Heb.  has  no  present  of  the  indicative.     This  want,  in 
active  verbs,  is  supplied  by  the  participle ;   in  the  substantive 
verb,  by  the  j  uxtaposition  of  the  terms  to  which  that  verb  in  other 
languages  serve  as  the  copula.     The  absence  of  the  verb,  there- 
fore, is  as  much  evidence  in  Heb.  that  what  is  affirmed  or  denied, 
is  meant  of  the  present  time,  as  the  form  of  the  tense  is  in  Gr.  or 
La.     Wherever  either  the  past  or  the  fut^ure  is  intended  by  the 
speaker,  as  the  Orientals  are  not  deficient  in  these  tenses,  the 
verb  is  not  left  to  be  supplied  by  the  hearer.     Thus  God  says  to 
Joshua  (ch.  i.   5.),   As  I  was  zcith  Moses,  that  is,  when  he  was 
employed  in  conducting  the  sons  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  so 
will  I  be  with  thee.     The  verb  is  expressed  in  both  clauses.    See 
also  V.  17.  and  1  Ki.  viLi.  57.     All  which  examples  are,  except 
in  the  single  circumstance  of  time,  perfectly  similar  to  this  of  the 
Evangelist ;  and  are  sufficient  evidence  that,  where  the  substan- 
tive verb  is  not  expressed,  but  the  personal  pronoun  is  immedi- 


146  NOTES  ON 


CH,  XXII. 


ately  conjoined  with  what  is  affirmed,  the  sense  must,  in  other 
languages,  be  exhibited  by  the  present.  Now,  to  make  the  force 
of  the  argument,  as  certain  expositors  have  done,  result  from 
something  implied  in  the  name  God^  is  to  convert  it  into  a  mere 
sophism.  To  affirm  that  the  term  itself  includes  the  perpetual 
preservation  of  the  worshippers,  is  to  take  for  granted  the  whole 
matter  in  dispute.  To  have  argued  thus  with  a  Sadducee,  would 
have  been  ridiculous.  In  Scripture,  as  every  where  else,  the  God 
of  any  persons  or  people,  means  simply  that  v?hich  is  acknow- 
ledged by  them,  and  worshipped  as  such.  Thus,  Dagon  is  call- 
ed the  god  of  the  Philistines  ( Jud.  xvi,  23.),  and  Baal-zebub  the 
god  of  Ekron  (2  Ki.  i.  3.).  But  the  sacred  writers  surely  never 
meant  to  suggest  that  these  gods  were  the  authors  of  such  bless- 
ings to  their  worshippers.  Nay,  it  is  not  even  clear  that  the 
latter  ever  expected  such  blessings  from  them.  What  seems  to 
have  occasioned  the  many  unnatural  turns  that  have  bsen  given 
to  this  argument,  by  later  commentators,  is  solely  the  misunder- 
standing of  the  word  uvftrxa-ii^  through  not  attending  to  the  lati- 
tude of  signification  wherein  it  was  often  used  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles.  Nor  is  this  the  only  term  in  which  the  modern  use 
does  not  exactly  tally  with  the  ancient. 

34.  Flocked  about  him,  c-wtjx^ijTctv  ctti  to  xvra,  E,  T.  IVere 
gathered  together.  In  this  interpretation,  the  clause,  £5r<  to  avro^ 
is  a  mere  pleonasm,  as  a-wTi^Si^a-xv  alone  implies  the  whole.  Now 
let  it  be  observed,  that  thus  much  might  have  been  affirmed,  in 
whatever  place  the  Pharisees  had  met ;  whereas  it  is  the  manifest 
design  of  the  Evangelist  to  acquaint  us,  that  the  preceding  con- 
futation of  the  Sadducees  occasioned  a  concourse  of  Pharisees  to 
him,  which  gave  rise  to  the  following  conversation.  I  approve, 
therefore,  the  way  in  which  Cas.  has  understood  the  words  e'^i 
TO  xvTo,  who  says,  coiverunt  eodem  ;  and  not  that  which  has  been 
adopted  by  the  Vul.  and  Er.  who  say,  convenerunt  in  uniim  ; 
or  by  the  Zu.  translator,  who  says,  convener 'int  sirnul ;  which 
has  been  followed  by  our  translators,  and  which,  in  eflert,  des- 
troys the  connection  of  the  passages.  The  Cam.  reads  e«-'  «i^r«v ; 
but,  as  in  this  it  is  singular,  we  can  lay  no  stress  on  it.  We  can 
only  say,  that  it  is  of  the  less  consequf^nce,  as  it  makes  no  differ-, 
ence  on  the  sense.  Be.  who  adopts  that  reading,  says,  aggregati 
sunt  apud  eum. 


CH.  xxni.  S.  MATTHEW.  141 

35.  A  lazoyer,  »»k<x««.  Diss.  VII.  P.  II.  §  2,  3.  and  Diss.  XII. 
P.  V.  §  12. 

4^.  Whose  son  should  he  be  ?  rrva  yjo?  es-i ;  E.  T.  Whose  son 
is  he^  The  indicative  mood,  in  the  Gr.  of  the  N.  T.  has  often 
all  the  extent  which  is  given  to  that  mood  in  Heb.  where  it  sup- 
plies most  of  the  other  moods.  The  import  of  it  in  this  place  is 
jusdv  rendered  in  Fr.  both  by  L.  CI.  and  by  Beau.  De  qui  doit, 
il  ctre  Jils?  which  answers  exactly  to  the  way  I  have  trans- 
lated it. 

43.   Call  him  his  Lord.     Diss.  VII.  P.  I.  §  8. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

2.  Sit  in  Moses'  chair.  The  Jewish  Doctors  always  taught 
fitting. 

5.  Phylacteries.,  (?vXuy.Tt;^tx.  A  Gr.  word  exactly  correspond, 
ing  in  etymology  to  the  word  conservatories.  They  were  scrips 
of  parchment  used  for  preserving  some  sentences  of  the  law  writ- 
ten on  them,  which,  from  the  literal  interpretation  of  Deut.  vi.  8. 
they  thought  themselves  obliged,  on  several  occasions,  especially 
at  (heir  prayers,  to  wear  bound  upon  their  forehead,  and  on  their 
left  arm. 

8.  Assume  not  the  title  of  rabl)i,for  ye  have  only  one  teacher^ 
ji4Jj  KM6>]Te  pu.QQi.)  tii  y»f  fs-(y  o/tcwv  'o  xaB^jyiiTr,!;.  E.  T.  Be  not  ye 
called  rabbi,  for  one  is  your  master.  Vul.  Vos  nolite  vocari 
rabbi.,  iinus  est  enim  magister  vester.  The  Vul.  seems  to  have 
read  J'd'a-KajAos,  where  it  is  in  the  common  Gr.  icaSviyftr^i ;  for  h.. 
^xTKciXoi  is  commonly  rendered  in  that  version  magister ;  and 
(5'(«<«5-»«Afl«  is  given  by  John  (i.  39.),  as  an  interpretation  into 
Gr.  of  the  Sy.  rabbi.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  owned,  this 
conclusion,  in  regard  to  the  reading  found  in  the  copies  used  by 
the  Lat.  translator,  does  not  possess  a  high  degree  of  probability, 
inasmuch  as  the  word  xafljjyjjTj;?  is  twice  rendered  by  him  magis- 
ter  in  v.  10.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Sax.  and,  perhaps, 
tome  other  versions.  But  it  is  equally  evident,  that  the  Sy.  in- 
serpreterhas  read  differently.  For  thf^  word  KxenytiTy.g,  in  v.  10. 
(where  there  is  no  such  ditference  of  reading),  is.  by  him,  as  it 
ought  to  be,  rendered  by  a  word  signifying  leader,  or  guide; 
whereas  the  t'Mm  rabbi  is  repeated  in  v.  8,  agreeably  to  his  uni- 
form practice  in  rendering  the  Gr.  ^Jxs-KxXoi.   Beside  this  evi- 

VOL.  IV.  18 


142  NOTES  ON  cii.  xxirr. 

dence  of  a  different  reading,  there  is  a  great  number  of  Gr.  MSS. 
which  read  ^t^xTxciXai,  v.  8.  This  reading  is  approved  by  Orig.  and 
Chr.  and  many  modern  critics  ;  amongst  whom  are  Gro.  Drusiusj 
Be.  Selden,  De  Dieu,  Mill,  and  Ben.  The  internal  evidence  is 
entirely  in  favour  of  this  reading.  The  sense  requires  that  the 
term,  in  the  latter  clause^  be  equivalent  to  rabbi  in  the  former. 
That  h^xa-KoiXoi  is  such  a  term,  we  learn,  not  only  from  the  Evan- 
gelist John,  in  the  place  above  quoted,  but  from  the  use  of  the 
Sy.  interpreter,  who  always  renders  the  one  term  by  the  other ; 
whereas  x.oi6>}y>iry,i  has,  in  that  version,  a  distinct  interpretation  in 
V.  10.  Further,  in  v.  10.  in  the  common  Gr.  we  find  the  disci- 
ples prohibited  from  assuming  the  title  of  x<t^;jy>jT^5,  for  the  very 
reason  repeated  which  we  find  given  in  v.  8.  for  their  not  assum- 
ing the  title  of  rabbi.  Thus  it  stands  in  the  two  verses  :  "  As- 
'•'  sume  not  the  title  of  rabbi,  for  ye  have  only  one  cathegetes  ; 
"  assume  not  the  title  of  cathegetes,  for  ye  have  only  one  cathe- 
''  getes."  For  my  part,  I  have  seen  no  instance  of  such  a  tau- 
tology, or  so  little  congruity  of  expression,  in  any  of  the  instruc- 
tions given  by  our  Lord.  I  therefore  approve,  in  v.  8.  the 
reading  of  the  Sy.  interpreter,  which  is  also  the  reading  of  many 
MSS.  replacing  h^xrx.xX'x;^  which  is  perfectly  equivalent  to  rabbi. 
I  also  think,  with  that  interpreter,  that  our  Lord  meant,  in  the 
10th  verse,  to  say  something  further  than  he  had  already  said  in 
the  8th.  I  acknowledge  that  the  sentiments  are  nearly  related  ; 
but  if  there  had  not  been  some  difl'erence,  there  would  have  been 
no  occasion  for  recurring  to  a  different,  and  even  unusual,  terra. 
Our  Lord,  in  my  opinion,  the  more  effectually  to  enforce  this 
warning  against  an  unlimited  veneration  for  the  judgments  and 
decisions  of  men,  as  a  most  important  lesson,  puts  it  in  a  variety 
of  lights,  and  prohibits  them  from  regarding  any  man  with  an 
implicit  and  blind  partiality,  as  teacher,  father,  or  guide.  Now 
this  end  is  not  answered,  if  all  or  any  two  of  them  be  rendered 
as  synonymous.  The  very  uncommonness  of  the  word  ^cs^^jjyjjT^s 
(for  it  occurs  in  no  other  place  of  the  N.  T.),  shews  an  effort  to 
say  something  more  than  was  comprehended  in  the  preceding 
words.  And  let  it  be  observed,  that  whatever  serves  to  prove 
that  its  meaning  is  not  coincident  with  h^xiricix.Xo(i^  serves  also  io 
prove  that  it  is  not  the  authentic  reading  in  v.  8th. 

2  The  Messiah^  o  Xpireg.  This  is  wanting  in  the  Sy.  Vul.  Cop- 
Sax,  and  Eth.  versions,  and  in  a  few  MSS. ;  but  the  authorities^ 


CH.  xxiii.  S.  MATTHEW.  143 

both  in  weight  and  in  number,  are  greatly  in  its  favour.  It 
makes,  however,  no  difference  in  the  sense  :  because,  if  not  read, 
the  context  manifestly  supplies  it. 

9.  Atid  all  ye  are  brethren.  In  the  common  Gr.  the  words 
answering  to  these,  to  wit,  ^<«vrf?  Se  u!/.ui  ahx^ai  fre,  are  placed 
in  the  end  of  the  preceding  verse,  with  which  they  have  little 
connection.  I  have  followed  a  considerable  number  of  copies, 
in  transposing  thom  to  the  end  of  verse  9th,  immediately  after, 
he  alone  is  Tjonr  Father  zcho  is  in  heaven.^  with  which  they  are 
intimately  connected.  The  arrangement  is  manifestly  more  na- 
tural, gives  a  closer  connection  to  the  sentiments,  and  throws 
more  light  on  the  passage  than  the  common  arrangement,  which 
places  this  clause  at  the  end  of  v.  8.  and  thereby  adds  an  abrupt- 
ness to  the  whole.  The  intrinsic  evidence  is  therefore  entirely 
in  favour  of  the  change. 

12.  Whoever  zcill  exalt  himself  shall  be  humbled ;  and  zsho- 
cver  7€ill  humble  himself.,  shall  be  exalted,  oV'?  u--luTei  cavrov, 
Tx-sriiVuB-ii'J-iTot.i'  KJ  oTii;  rxxiivMC-si  exvrov,  if^a^.-^Tircci.  E.  T.  JVho- 
soever  shall  exalt  himself.,  shall  be  abased  ;  and  he  that  shall 
humble  himself,  shall  be  exalted.  What  has  induced  our  trans- 
lators to  render  the  verb  rxTsmvoeiv  differently  in  these  two  clauses, 
in  one  to  abase,  in  the  other,  to  humble,  it  would  not  be  easy  io 
say.  To  humble  is,  in  respect  of  meaning,  equally  well  adapted 
to  both.  When  that  is  the  case,  a  change,  by  weakening  the  an- 
tithesis, hurts  the  energy  of  the  expression.  In  the  parallel  pas- 
sages, L,  xiv.  n.  xviii.  14.  they  make  the  same  variation.  I  do 
not  find  this  mode  of  rendering,  adopted  by  any  ancient,  or  any 
foreign,  interpreter.  It  seems  peculiar  to  Eng.  translators,  some 
of  whom  before,  and  some  since,  the  publication  of  the  common 
version,  have  taken  this  method. 

13.  14,  15,  16.  23.  25.  27.  29.  Woe  unto  you,  cjm  6^t,.  L. 
vi.  24,  25,  26.  N. 

14.  Use  long  praj/ers  for  a  disguise,  -Trpaipo^rit  iA.oiv.pz  Trporev. 
Zof^-svoi,  E.  T.  For  a  pretence  make  long  prayer.  This  is  rather 
too  elliptical,  and  consequently  obscure.  Otherwise  it  does  not 
differ  in  import  from  that  here  given.  For  what  is  a  pretence, 
but  a  false  appearance  employed  for  concealing  the  truth  ?  The 
true  motive  of  thcir.attenfion  and  assiduities  was  avarice:  devo- 


144  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXIII. 


tion  was  only  their  mask.     This  verse  is  wanting  in  some  MSi>. 
in  others  it  is  transposed,  being  placed  before  the  1 3th. 

^  Punishment,  apif^x.     E.  T.  Damnation.     Mr.  xii.  40.  N. 

16.  18,  Bindeih  not,  ^hi  e^tv.  E.  T.  It  is  nothing;  that  is 
*  Though  it  is,  in  appearance,  it  is  nol,  in  reality,  an  oath;  it 
'  has  not  the  power  of  binding.' 

19.  Foolish  and  blind.,  f^apoi  ;<J  Tt^A?*.  The  words  ^amp^h  «}  are 
wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  The  like  defect  is 
found  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  versions. 

23.  i)//^,  TO  xvtiB-ov.  E  T.  Anise.  In  tlie  sntne  way  it  is  ren- 
dered in  all  the  Eng.  versions  I  have  seen.  Yet  xvr,6ov  does  not 
mean  anise,  but  dill.  Our  trantlators  have  been  first  misled  by 
a  mere  resemblance  ia  sound,  and  afterwards  implicitly  copied 
by  all  their  successors.  This  mistake,  though  of  small  conse- 
quence, is  the  more  rem?.rkab]e,  ns  no  other  but  Eng.  translators 
seem  to  have  fallen  into  it.  All  the  La.  interpreters  say  rightly 
an-thiim,  the  Itn.  aneto,  the  Fr.  nneth,  Lu.  in  his  Ger.  version 
says  till,  and  the  Sax.  version  is  bile.  It  is  the  more  observable, 
as  in  most  of  those  languages,  the  word  for  atiise  has  \\\e  like 
resemblance  in  sound  to  jcvf^ov,  with  the  Eng.  word,  though  with 
them  it  has  occasioned  no  mistake.  Thus,  anise  is,  in  Gr.  sfv/c-«ii, 
in  La.  anisum,  in  Itn.  aniso,  and  in  Fr.  anis. 

^  Justice,  humanity/,  and  fidelity,  rr,v  y-pinv,  >u  rov  sAsov,  «^  t-^v 
?r<f<y,  E.  T.  Judgment,  mercy,  and  faith.  The  word  ji/dgmenf, 
in  our  language,  when  it  has  any  relation  to  the  distribution  of 
justice,  never  means  the  virtue  or  duty  of  judging  justly,  but 
either  the  right  of  judging,  the  act  of  judging,  or  the  result  of 
judging,  that  is,  the  doom  or  sentence  giveu,  right  or  wrong: 
sometimes,  when  spoken  in  reference  to  the  celestial  Judge,  it 
means  the  effect  of  that  sentence,  the  punishment  inflicted.  To 
this  the  Gr.  word  xpif.cx  more  properly  corresponds;  though  it 
must  be  owned,  that  the  word  icpirn^,  which,  by  analogy,  should 
be  raiherjudicafio  than  judiciu?n^  is  also  often  used  to  denote  it. 
But  it  is  evident,  that  the  word  y.ptTi<;  likewise  signifies  distribu- 
tive justice,  and  even  sometimes  j//*//ce  in  the  largest  acceptation. 
It  is  in  this  place  rendered  by  Ca^.jus,  and  by  the  five  Fr.  trans- 
lators, p.  R.  Si.  Sa.  L.  Cl.  and  Beau.  Injustice.  For  the  mean- 
ing of  T4V  i>.£ov,  see  ch.  ix.  13.      ^  N.  Fidelity,  or  faithfulness,  iS 


cH.  xxiir.  S.  MATTHEW.  145 

agreed,  on  all  sides,  to  be  the  meaning  of  tijv  5r<s-/v  here,  where  it 
is  ranked  among  the  social  virtues. 

24.  JVho  strum  your  liquor,  to  avoid  swalloteing  a  gnat,  oi 
hvM(^ovTsi;  T«v  xavMTrci.  E.  T.  JVho  strain  at  a  gnat.  I  do  not 
understand  the  import  of  this  expression.  Some  have  thought, 
that  it  has  sprung  originally  from  a  mere  typographical  error  of 
some  printer,  who  has  made  it  strain  at,  instead  of  strain  out. 
Accordingly,  most  of  the  late  Eng.  translators  have  said  strain  out. 
Yet  this  expression,  strain  out  a  gnat,  it  must  be  confessed, 
sounds  very  oddly  ;  and  it  may  be  justly  questioned,  whether 
any  good  Eng.  authority  can  be  produced  for  such  a  manner  of 
construing  the  verb.  For  this  reason,  I  thought  it  safer  here, 
though  with  the  aid  of  circumlocution,  to  give  what  is  evidently 
the  sense. 

25.  Which  within  are  laden,  eTuiiv  $t  yctcnTiv.  Vul.  Intus 
autem  pleni  estis.  This  has,  doubtless,  sprung  from  a  difterent 
reading,  but  is  quite  unsupported. 

'  Iniquity,  xKoaa-ioKi.  Vul.  Immunditia.  E.  T.  Excess.  But 
there  is  such  a  general  consent  of  MSS.  and  Fathers,  with  the  Sy. 
Ara.  and  Eth.  versions,  for  the  word  u^iKieii,  that  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  doubt  of  its  being  the  genuine  reading.  Besides,  it 
suits  much  better  with  all  the  accounts  we  have,  in  other  places, 
of  the  character  of  the  Pharisees,  who  are  never,  as  far  as  I  re- 
member, accused  of  intemperance,  though  often  of  injustice.  The 
former  vice  is  rarely  found  with  those  who,  like  the  Pharisees, 
make  great  pretensions  to  religion. 

32.  Fill  ye  up  then,  km  vf^st?  TrX^j^uTxre.  A  very  few  copies, 
and  those  not  of  the  highest  value,  read  eTrXii^axT-xrs,  ie  have  /Hi- 
ed up  ;  or  interrogatively.  Do  ye  Jill  up?  But  as  they  are  un- 
supported  alike  by  ancient  versions  and  ecclesiastical  writers, 
this  reading  cannot  be  admitted.  I  see  no  difficulty  in  consider- 
ing the  words  as  an  ironical  order,  which  is  always  understood 
to  h?.  a  severe  reproach,  like  that  in  the  iEneid,  lib.  v.  /,  sequere 
Italiam  ventis.  Irony  is  a  trope  which  several  times  occurs  in 
Scripture;  and  we  have,  at  least,  one  other  instance,  Mr.  vii.  9. 
of  its  having  been  used  hy  our  Saviour.     Ch.  xxvi.  43.  N. 

34.  Banish  from  city  to  city,  ^lu^tn  'ctTo  TroXmxi  ei<;  ttoXiv.  E.  T. 
Persecute  them  from  city  to  city.     That  ^kokm  has  both  significa- 


146  NOTES  ON  en.  xxir. 

tions,  cannot  be  doubted.  But  the  words,  in  construction,  com- 
monly remove  all  ambiguity.  Aiuneiv  citto  TsroXeue,  is  unquestionably 
to  banish  from,  or  drive  out  of  a  city.  If  it  had  been,  as  in  ch, 
X.  23.  where  the  expression  is,  orav  ^tuKua-iv  v/^ca  a  rtj  tfoXh^  not 
«9ra  r-,j5  ^«A£«5,  it  ought  to  have  been  rendered />er*ecM<e.  See  note 
on  that  verse.  This  distinction  seems  not  to  have  been  attended 
to  by  modern  translators. 

35.  Son  of  Barachiah.  In  the  book  of  Chronicles,  to  which 
this  passage  plainly  alludes,  Zechariah  is  called  son  of  Jehoiada. 
But  no  Gr.  MS.  extant,  or  ancient  version  of  this  Gospel,  has 
Jehoiada.  Jerom,  indeed,  acquaints  us,  that  he  found  it  so  in 
the  Heb.  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes.  But,  considering  the  free- 
doms which  have  been  taken  with  that  Gospel,  in  other  places, 
we  cannot  account  it  sufficient  authority  for  changing  a  term 
which  is  supported  by  the  amplest  evidence.  It  is  more  resona- 
ble  to  think,  with  Father  Si.  that  though  not  mentioned  in  the 
O.  T.  Jehoiada  must  have  also  had  the  name  Barachiah.  To 
have  two  names  was  not  then  uncommon. 

2  The  sanctuary^  m  dxh.     L.  i.  9.  N. 

36.  jlll  shall  be  charged  upon  this  generation.  As  I  under- 
stand it,  this  expression  must  not  be  interpreted  as  implying  that 
those  individual  crimes,  which  happened  before  the  time  of  the 
people  then  living,  would  be  laid  to  their  charge ;  but  that,  with 
every  species  of  cruelty,  oppression,  and  murder,  which  had  been 
exemplified  informer  ages,  they  of  that  age  would  be  found 
chargeable  :  inasmuch  as  they  had  permitted  no  kind  of  wicked, 
ness  to  be  peculiar  to  those  who  had  preceded  them;  but  had 
carefully  imitated,  and  even  exceeded,  all  the  most  atrocious 
deeds  of  their  ancestors  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  There 
is  no  hyperbole  in  the  representation.  The  account  given  of  them 
by  Josephus,  who  was  no  Christian,  but  one  of  themselves, 
shows,  in  the  strongest  light,  how  justly  they  are  here  characte- 
rized by  our  Lord. 


CHAPTER  XXIV \ 

2.  All  this  ye  see,  ov  ^XeTsreTe  TFociTx  tolvtu,.  E.  T.  iice  \>e  not 
all  these  things  ?  The  a  is  wanting  in  many  MSS.  The  Vul. 
Eth.  Cop.  Ara.  and  Sax.  versions  have  no  negative  particle  in 


CH.  xxiT.  S.  MATTHEr\V.  147 

this  place.  As  the  expression  must  be  read  interrogatively,  if 
we  admit  tl^A negative ;  and  affirmatively,  if  we  reject  it;  the 
difference  cannot  be  said  to  aftect  the  sense.  The  composition  is 
rather  simpler  without  it.  I  have,  therefore,  with  many  modern 
critics,  omitted  it. 

3.   The  conclusion  of  this  state.     Ch.  xii.  32.  N. 

5.  Many  zvill  assume  my  character^  -n-oXXoi  eXevTovrai  stti  ra  ovo- 
/tt«T<  fty.  E.  T.  Many  shall  come  in  yny  name.  But  to  come  in 
one's  name  signifies,  with  us,  more  properly,  to  come  by  one's 
authority  or  order,  real  or  pretended.  Thus,  Blessed  be  he  zcho 
Cometh  in  the  name  oj  the  Lord.  In  this  sense,  as  the  Messiah 
came  in  the  name  of  God,  the  Apostles  came  in  the  name  of  the 
Messiah.  This  is  far  from  being  the  sense  of  the  phrase  in  the 
passage  under  review.  Here  it  plainly  signifies,  that  many  would 
usurp  his  title,  make  pretensions  to  his  office  and  character,  and 
thereby  lead  their  followers  into  the  most  fatal  delusion.  That 
this  is  the  sense  here,  is  plain  from  what  is  immediately  subjoin- 
ed, ^.tyoirei^  'Eyu  siyj  o  %f(^r;^.  The  expression  is  rendered,  not 
badly,  into  Itn.  by  D'w.  Molti  veranno  sottoilmio  nome  ;  which 
has  been  followed  in  Fr.  by  the  translators  of  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  and 
Beau,  who  say,  Plusicurs  viendront  sous  mon  nam ;  but  L.  CI. 
says  more  explicitly,  //  viendra  Men  des  gens  qui  prendront 
mon  nom. 

10.    Will  be  ensnared,  ^rKciv^xXis-B-iitrtvTxi.     Ch.  v.  29.  N. 

15.  On  holy  ground,  ev  tcttu  ayiu..  E.  T.  In  the  holy  place. 
But  this  expression,  with  us,  invariably  denotes  the  sanctuary, 
or  the  outer  part  of  the  v«®-,  or  temple,  strictly  so  called.  This 
is  not  the  meaning  here;  neither  is  totf®^  et,yi®^  the  name  by 
which  the  sanctuary  is  ever  distinguished  in  the  N.  T.  It  is 
called  simply,  ro  aytov,  or  s?'  o-jc^jvaj  v^uttj,  or  uyia, ;  the  inner  part 
of  the  house,  or  most  holy  place,  being  distinguished  by  the  ap- 
pellation !j'  crx.7ivti  hvTi^ot,,  or  uyicx.  oiyiuv.  To5r@-  «y<®-,  therefore, 
denotes  any  place  which,  comparatively,  may  be  denominated 
holy.  The  whole  temple,  to  U^ov,  including  all  the  courts,  is 
twice  so  termed  in  the  Acts.  Nay,  the  whole  city  Jerusalem, 
with  its  suburbs  and  environs,  was  holy,  compared  with  other 
cities ;  and  such,  also,  was  the  whole  land  of  Judca,  compared 
with  other  countries.  Besides,  it  deserves  to  be  remarked,  that 
the  expression  here  is  indefinite,  as  it  wants  the  article,  and  is, 


148  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxiv. 

therefore,  more  justly,  as  it  is  more  literally,  rendered  by  Sc.« 
holy  place ^  than  in  the  common  version.  The  plac^  or  groiind, 
here  called  holif  is,  undoubtedly,  the  environs  of  Jerusalem. 
Accordingly,  in  the  parallel  passage  in  L.  we  are  told:  \  When 
ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies,  know,  that  the 
desolation  thereof  is  nigh. 

^  The  desolating  abomination^  to  ^^eXvy/^x  rjjs  e^jjf^&xriix;.  E. 
T.  The  abomination  of  desolation  ;  that  is,  when  expressed  in 
the  common  idiom,  the  abomination  which  desolatefh,  or  maketh 
desolate.  By  abomination,  nothing  is  more  commonly  under- 
stood, in  the  language  of  Scripture,  than  idols  of  every  kind.  It 
is  here,  generally,  and  1  think,  justly,  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
Roman  standards  to  be  erected  round  the  city,  when  it  would  be 
besieged  by  Titus  Vespasian.  The  expressions  used  here,  and 
im  the  parallel  passages,  especially  when  compared  with  the  his- 
tory of  the  siege,  as  related  by  Josephus,  who,  though  a  Jew,  is 
the  best  commentator  on  this  prophecy,  add  the  highest  proba- 
bility to  the  interpretation  now  given.  Those  standards  had 
images  on  them  which  were  adored  by  the  Romans.  Nothing 
could  be  more  properly  styled  a  desolating  abomination,  as  they 
accompanied  the  armies  which  came  for  the  utter  destructioii  of 
the  place:  and  as  the  appearance  of  those  detested  ensigns  was 
rendered,  to  all  who  received  this  prophecy,  a  sure  signal  of  the 
impending  ruin. 

3  (Reader,  attend!)  (o  ee.yx'/ivuTx.u)!  voetra  \)  E.  T.  (Whoso 
readeih,  let  him  understand.)  The  verb  voetv,  signifies  not  only 
to  understand,  but  to  consider,  to  mind,  to  attend.  See  2  Tim. 
ii.  7.  In  regard  to  the  words  themselves,  after  the  strictest  exa- 
mination, I  cannot  help  concluding,  that  they  are  not  the  words 
of  our  Lord,  and  consequently  make  no  part  of  this  memorable 
discourse,  but  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  calling  the  attention 
of  his  readers  to  a  very  important  warning  and  precept  of  his 
Master,  which  he  was  then  writing,  and  of  which  many  of  them 
would  live  to  see  the  utility,  when  the  completion  of  these  pre- 
dictions should  begin  to  take  place.  I  have,  therefore,  given 
them  in  the  character  by  which  I  always  distinguish  the  words  of 
the  writer.  My  reasons  for  ascribiTig  them  rather  to  him  than 
to  the  speaker,  are  as  follows  :  First,  The  words  are  too  abrupt, 
and  too  much  out  of  the  syntactic  order  for  a  common  parenthe- 
sis; for  if  this  had  been  a  clause  immediately  connected  with 


cii.  XXIV.         '  S.  MATTHEW.  149 

the  preceding  (as  (hose  must  imagine,  who  think  that  the  reader. 
here  means  the  reader  of  Daniel's  prophecy),  the  tote,  which  fol. 
lows,  should  have  preceded  ;  and  the  whole  would  have  run 
thus:  OTcev  latjre  ro  f^oe^vyfiLec  ra  ^?i6iv  dice  Aecv/£>i, — Ef&ij  cv  tottu  uyio)' 
Tare  o  otMstyiyuTnuv  vocitm^  ot  tv  ryi  luaxix  (psvyiruj-av. — o  (TTI  th  ^of-cufo^ 
{Ml  KXTccoxiveTM^—Kcti  0  iv  Tu  scy^u  yjn  i7vi7^i'\'Ct.Tu — With  so  small 
an  alteration,  the  sentence  would  have  been  grammatical  and 
perspicuous.  As  it  stands,  nothing  can  be  more  detached  than 
the  clause  under  review.  At  the  first  glance,  one  is  apt  to  think 
that  there  should  be  a  full  stop  at  toutoi.  And  indeed,  if  the  lat- 
ter part  were  entirely  away,  the  former  would  make  a  complete 
sentence.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  second  member  of  a  sen- 
tence beginning  with  'orx^^  should  be  introduced  with  ran  ; 
though  this  adverb  is  sometimes  used  for  rendering  the  expres- 
sion more  energetic.  The  clause,  therefore,  o  ^((^^^(kwj-jcwv  vositm^ 
is  here  thrust  in  between  the  two  constituent  parts  of  the  sen- 
tence, and  properly  belongs  to  neither.  That  it  does  not  belong 
to  the  first  member,  is  evident  from  the  mood,  as  well  as  the  want 
of  the  copulative  ;  audit  is  excluded  from  the  second,  by  the 
following  Tore,  which,  wherever  it  is  used,  ushers  in  all  the  sub- 
junctive part  of  the  sentence.  But  though  it  cannot  be  made  to 
coalesce  with  our  Lord's  words,  it  appears,  when  understood  as 
a  call  to  attention  from  the  P^vangelist,  extremely  pertinent.  Let 
it  be  observed,  that  our  Lord  pronounced  this  prophecy  about 
forty  years  before  the  fulfilment  of  what  related  to  Jerusalem. 
As  this  Evangelist  is  supposed  to  have  written  at  least  eight  or 
ten  years  after  our  Lord's  crucifixion,  this  would  be  about  thirty 
years  before  the  accomplishment.  Jesus  said,  when  he  spoke 
this  discourse,  that  there  were  of  his  hearers  who  would  live  to 
see  the  things  happen  which  he  had  predicted  ;  now  as  the  time 
was  still  nearer,  when  the  Evangelist  wrote,  it  was  natural  for 
him  to  conclude,  that  a  great  proportion  of  his  readers  would  be 
xvitnesses  of  the  fatal  catastrophe,  and,  therefore,  that  it  was  of 
the  last  importance  to  them  to  fix  their  attention  on  a  warning, 
wherein  the  time  is  so  critically  marked,  and  on  the  proper  use 
of  which,  not  only  their  temporal  safety,  but  their  conviction  of 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  consequently,  their  spiritual  inte- 
rest, might  much  depend.  In  this  view,  this  apostrophe  is,  though 
short,  a  complete  sentence,  and  inserted  in  the  only  proper  place, 
between  the  infallible  signs  of  immediate  danger,  and  the  con. 
vor..  IV.  19 


150  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxiv. 

duct  then  to  be  pursued.     This  makes  the  rere,  which  ushers  in 
the  sequel  of  the  sentence,  particularly  emphatical,  as  serving  to 
recal  the  former  part.     Nor  is  this  at  all  unconformable  to  the 
best  use  in  writing.     Such  short  interruptions,  as,   Now  mark 
7chat  follows !  or.  Would  God  this  were  dull/  weighed!  when 
suitable,  serve  to  awaken  attention,  and  do  not  suspend  the  sense 
long  enough  to  create  obscurity.     Perhaps  it  will  be  said.  If 
there  be  nothing  unsuitable  in  the  figure,  ought  we  not  rather  to 
think  it  has  been  used   by  our  Lord,  than  by  the  Evangelist  ? 
The  answer  is  obvious.     Our  Lord  did  not  write,  but  speak. 
Those  who  received  instruction  immediately  from  him.  Mere  not 
readers,  but  hearers.     Had  the  expression  been,  <j  xKi^m  vestra^  it 
must  have  been  part  of  the  discourse  ;  as  it  is,  it  ought  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  call  from  the  writer,  and,  consequently,  no  part  of 
the  discourse.     There  is  another  objection.    The  Evangelist  Mr. 
uses  the  expression  exactly  in  the  same  situation.  This,  if  it  was 
spoken  by  our  Lord,  is  no  more  to  be  wondered  at,  than  their 
coincidence  in  any  other  part  of  the  narrative  :  but,  if  it  Avas  a 
sentiment  of  the  writer,  that  it  should  have  struck  both  precisely 
in  the  same  part  of  the  narration,  may  appear  extraordinary. 
That  this  should  have  happened  to  two  writers,  neither  of  whom 
knew  of  the  writings  of  the  other,  is  no  doubt  improbable.     But 
that  is  not  the  case  here.     Mt.  who  was  an  Apostle,  and  an  eye 
and  ear-witness  of  most  of  the  things  which  he  relates,  doubtless 
wrote  first.     That  Mr.  who  had  not  the  same  advantages,  but 
drew  his  knowledge  in  a  great  measure  from  the  Apostles  of  our 
Lord,  particularly  Peter,  had  read  with  attention  Mt.'s  Gospel, 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt.     And  though  he  does  not  copy  or 
follow  him  implicitly  (for  there  is  a  considerable  difference  of 
circumstances  in  several  parts  of  the  narrative),  the  coincidence, 
in  many  things,  is  so  great,  as  could  not  otherwise  be  accounted 
for.     And  if  this  acquaintance  with  our  apostle's  history  be  ad- 
mitted, it  will  account  sufficiently  for  adopting  a  figure  so  appo- 
site to  the  occasion. 

17.  To  carry  things.,  otpxi  rt.  E.  T.  To  take  ami  thing.  This 
is  a  just  version  of  the  common  reading.  But  there  is  a  very 
general  consent  of  MSS.  early  editions,  ecclesiastical  writers,  and 
some  ancient  versions,  which  read  ra  instead  of  ri.  This  read, 
ing  I  have,  after  Mill  and  Wet.  preferred. 


.H.  XXIV.  S.  MATTHEW.  151 

20.  Nor  on  the  sabbath,  n^ih  a  a-u^^eiTa.  E.  T.  Neither  on 
the  sabbaihuluy.  There  is  no  word  in  the  original  to  which  the 
term  day  corresponds.  Now,  as  some  expositors  maintain,  that 
it  is  the  sabbatical  year,  and  not  the  weekly  sabbath,  which  is 
here  meant:  the  translator  ought  to  preserve,  if  possible,  all  the 
latitude  of  expression  employed  by  the  author. 

22.  J^  the  time  zocre  protracted,  et  yjn:  iKoXo^aS^^xt  ui  tifAi^M 
uieivM.  E.  T.  Except  those  days  should  be  shortened.  To  shorten 
any  thing,  means  always  to  make  it  shorter  than  it  Avas ;  or,  at 
least,  to  make  it  shorter  than  was  intended.  Neither  of  these 
meanings  is  applicable  here.  The  like  exception  may  be  made 
to  the  Gr.  verb  in  this  place,  which  is  used  in  the  idiom  of  the 
synagogue.  See  a  similar  use  of  ^sytiAnv&i  and  5rAi»Tvi/<w,  ch.  xxiii.5. 

24.  Will  perform  great  xconders  and  prodigies,  Suo-airi  T*i(4.uct 
fA^yoiXx  Ksii  ripxTcc.  Wa.  vcill  propose  great  signs  and  wonders. 
No  other  interpreter  that  I  know,  ancient  or  modern,  has  so 
rendered  the  word  ^uo-hti.  They  all  represent  the  signs  or  won- 
ders, as  given  or  shown  (not  proposed  or  promised),  to  the  peo- 
ple. This  author,  indeed,  uses  as  little  ceremony  as  Beza,  in 
assigning  liis  reason  for  this  singularity,  no  other  version,  it 
seems,  could  be  made  to  suit  his  doctrine  of  miracles.  It  may 
be  so  :  but  as  the  only  topics  which  ought  to  weigh  with  a  critic, 
are  the  import  of  the  words  and  the  scope  of  the  passage ;  the 
question  is,  what  meaning  do  these  indicate?  As  to  the  first,  the 
words  ^i^ovcii  <r>;f/.£i*  X.CU  TepciTx,  wliich  literally  represent  the  Heb. 
first  occur  in  the  Sep.  in  Deut.  vi.  22.  E^^«  Kvpi(^  c~y,<i^eix  x«/  n. 
ectTct,  !A.iy»Xoi,x.xi  TTOi^^oe.,  sv  AiyvTCTco.  The  Lord  shoii'cd  signs  and 
zcondcrs,  great  and  sore,  upon  Egypt.  Again,  in  a  public  ad- 
dress to  God,  by  the  Levites,  on  a  solemn  fast ;  Nehem.  ix.  10. 
Y.^u-AX'i  o-VifA-Hcf.  y.cn  rs^arx  sv  AiyvTrrta.  Tliou  shoxs:edst  signs  and 
'ponders  in  Egypt.  Did  the  sacred  penmen  mean  to  tell  us,  that 
God  only  proposed,  but  did  not  exhibit,  signs  and  wonders; 
that  he  threatened  Egypt  with  plagues,  but  did  not  indict  them  ? 
I  cannot  suppose  that  even  Mr.  Wa.  will  affirm  this.  That  o's- 
vitt  <r>;u!tov  invariably  denotes  to  exhibit,  not  to  promisf,  a  mira. 
cle,  might  be  proved  by  examples  both  from  the  O.  T.  and  from 
the  N.  The  only  passage  which  this  author  quotes  as  favouring 
Lis  hypothesis,  is  Deu.  xiii.  1.  &c.  If  there  arise  among  you  a 
prophet  or  a  dreamer,  zsho  giveth  thee  a  sign  or  a  zcondcr.  and 


152  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxiy. 

the  sign  or  the  wonder  come  to  pass^  &c.  Is  any  one  at  a  lo&s 
to  discover  (hat  the  sign  here  meant  is  the  prediction  of  some 
event  that  exceeds  human  sagacity  to  foresee?  Such  a  prediction 
is  a  miracle,  which  though,  in  fact,  performed,  when  it  is  utter- 
ed, cannot  be  known  to  others  as  miraculous  till  the  accomplish- 
ment. The  names  prophet  and  dreamer  serve  to  confirm  this 
explanation.  As  to  the  scope  of  the  passage  in  the  gospel,  eve- 
ry body  sees  that  it  is  to  warn  the  disciples  against  the  artifices 
of  false  teachers.  Now,  if  all  the  art  of  these  teachers  consisted 
in  promising  great  things  which  they  never  performed,  it  could 
not  surely  have  been  spoken  of  as  enough  to  seduce,  if  possible, 
even  the  elect.  To  promise  much  and  do  nothing,  far  from  fit- 
ting those  impostors  to  be  successful  antagonists  to  men  endow, 
ed  with  supernatural  powers,  did  not  qualify  them  as  rivals  to 
an  ordinary  juggler,  who,  if  he  have  not  the  reality,  has  at  least 
the  appearance  of  a  wonder-worker.  Mere  proposers  or  promi- 
sors are  fitted  for  deceiving  only  the  weakest  and  the  most  cre- 
dulous of  the  people. 

30.  Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  heaven, 
TOTS  (pavijcreriiit  to  <rijiu,c-iov  ts  lia  m  avS^eozra  cv  tu  h^xvu.  The  Gr. 
o-;jft:-<ov,  like  the  La.  signum,  means  not  oJily  sign  in  general,  but 
standard,  banner,  which  is  indeed  one  species  of  sign.  As  the 
Eng.  word  ensign  is  equivocal  in  the  same  way,  the  passage  may 
be  rendered.  Then  shall  the  ensign  of  the  Son  of  Man  be  dis. 
plai/ed  in  heaven.  Such  military  ideas  are  not  unsuitable  to  the 
prophetic  style,  or  even  to  the  tenor  of  this  prophecy,  which  is 
highly  figurative.  But  as  there  appears  in  the  words  a  plain  re. 
ference  to  the  question  put  by  the  disciples,  v.  3.  What  will  be 
the  sign  (to  a-^f^nav)  of  thy  coming?  I  judged  it  better  to  follow 
the  E.  T,  and  retain  the  reference.  We  have  no  reason  to  think 
that  a  particular  phenomenon,  in  the  sky,  is  here  suggested.  The 
striking  evidences  which  would  be  given  of  the  divine  presence, 
and  avenging  justice,  are  a  sufficient  justification  of  the  terms, 

36.  But,  of  that  day  and  that  hour,  Ue^i  h  t^j?  -<;«-£^«5  ey.uvrti  >^ 
Tiji  6)$x<;.  Bishop  Newton,  in  his  excellent  work  on  the  prophe- 
cies (Diss.  XXI.)  says,  ''  It  seemeth  somewhat  improper  to  say. 
"  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man  ;  for  if  the  day  was  not 
"  known,  certainly  the  hour  was  not ;  and  it  was  superfluous  to 


JH.  XXIV.  S.  MATTHEW.  153 

•^  make  the  addition  ;"  he  therefore  prefers  the  word  season  to 
hour.  In  my  opinion  the  sentence  has  less  the  appearance  of 
redundancy,  when  upa,  is  rendered  hour.  One  who  says  he  knows 
the  day  when  such  a  thing  will  be  done,  is  understood  to  mean 
the  day  of  the  year,  suppose  the  7th  of  April  :  now,  if  that  be 
known,  the  season  is  known.  But  a  man  may  know  the  day:) 
who  knows  not  the  hour  or  time  of  the  day,  when  a  particular 
event  shall  take  place. 

2  Three  MSS.  after  upctvuv  read  udi  o  o<©-.  The  Eth.  version 
has  read  so.  Some  MS.  copies  of  the  Vul.  have  nequefilius,  and 
some  of  the  Fathers  seem  to  have  read  so.  But  it  is  the  general 
opinion  of  critics  (and,  I  think,  is  probable)  that  this  clause  has 
been  borrowed  from  the  parallel  place  in  Mr.  where  there  is  no 
diversity  of  reading. 

38.  Marrying^  yetu-avra  y.cit  cKyxf^i^ovrn.  The  Eng.  word  com- 
prehends the  sense  of  both  the  Gr.  words,  and  therefore  needs  no 
addition. 

40.  Tzco  men.        i      jy.^^   ^^^   p  ^^  ^  ^^       ^ 

41.  Tzco  zcomen.   } 

Immediately  after  v.  41.  we  find,  in  two  or  three  MSS.  onlyj 
io-evrcit  ^va>  (tti  y.Xtvm  yjx<;^  as  in  L.  xvii.  34.  from  which  it  haf 
doubtless  been  taken. 

48.  Vicious,  otetK®^.     E.  T.  evil.  ch.  xxv.  26.  N. 

49.  Shall  beaty  a^|j;T«<  rvTrmv.      Mr.  v.  17.  N. 

51.  Having  discarded  him,  Si^orof^ticrei  uvtov.  E.  T.  Shall  cut 
him  asunder.  But  this  ill  suits  with  what  follows  of  his  punish- 
ment, which  supposes  him  still  alive.  It  is  no  answer  to  sa}', 
that  the  punishment  of  the  kicked  will  affect  both  the  present 
life  and  the  future.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  is  a  parable 
wherein  our  Lord  represents  to  us,  under  the  conduct  of  earthly 
rulers  and  masters,  towards  their  subjects  and  servants,  in  re- 
gard to  the  present  state  only,  what  will  be  the  conduct  of  our 
Lord  and  Master  in  heaven^  in  regard  to  both,  but  principally 
the  future.  Now,  to  mingle  thus,  and  confound,  the  letter  and 
the  spirit  of  the  parable,  or  the  story  and  the  application,  and 
Lo  ascribe  to  the  earthly  master,  the  actions  peculiar  to  the  hea- 
venly, would  be  as  contrary  to  all  propriety,  as  it  is  repugnant 
to  our  Lord's  manner.  In  regard  to  the  word  hy/tTof^iu,  we  havp 


154  NOTES  ON  cii.  xxv* 

little  or  no  light  from  scriptural  use.  In  the  N.  T.  it  occurs 
only  here,  and  in  the  parallel  passage  in  L.  and  in  the  Sep.  it  oc- 
curs only  once.  But  it  has  been  observed,  that  the  Sy.  uses  the 
same  word  to  express  the  sense  of  ^t^orof^ea  here,  and  in  L.  which 
it  employs  in  other  places  for  rendering  <J<;t;«^w  and  i^e^i^eo,  to  di. 
vide^  to  make  a  breach^  to  separate.  Now  the  language  spoken 
by  our  Lord  was  a  sister-dialect  of  the  Sy.  Bishop  Pearce  has 
observed  that  xTrore/^vM  is  used  by  the  son  of  Sirach,  Ecclus.  xxv. 
26.  and  hcmttth)  and  uTroicoirrti)  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  Rom.  xi.  22, 
Gal.  T.  12.  in  the  same  signification  for  discarding^  cutting  off 
from  one's  family  or  society.  Nor  needs  there  stronger  evidence, 
especially  when  the  absurdity  implied  in  the«ther  interpretation 
is  considered,  to  satisfy  us  that  this  is  no  more  than  a  Syriasm,  to 
denote,  he  will  deprive  him  of  his  office,  and  so  cut  him  off  from 
his  family.  Be.  has  therefore  justly  rendered  it  separabit  euni., 
in  which  he  has  been  followed  by  Pise,  as  well  as  by  all  the  Fr. 
translators  I  am  acquainted  with,  whether  they  translate  pro- 
fessedly from  the  Gr.  or  from  the  Vul.  They  all  say,  le  sepa- 
rera  ;  for  the  Vul.  which  says  dividet  eu?n^  will  bear  this  version. 
AH  the  Eng.  translators  of  this  century,  except  An.  Mho  says, 
shall  turn  him  out  of  his  family^  have  followed  the  common 
version. 

^  With  the  perfidious,  (jlitx  rm  'woicpiTm.  E.  T.  IVith  the  %- 
pocrites.  But  this  word  with  us  is  confined  to  that  species  of 
dissimulation  which  concerns  religion  only.  It  is  not  so  with 
the  Gr.  term,  which  is  commonly,  and  not  improperly,  rendered 
by  Cas.  simulator,  dissembler.  Nay,  from  the  use  of  l7roKotT}i<;, 
and  its  conjugates,  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  Apocrypha,  it  appears 
to  have  still  greater  latitude  of  signification,  and  to  denote  some- 
times what  we  should  call  an  unprincipled  person,  one  unworthy 
of  trust.  I  acknowledge,  that  in  the  N.  T.  it  commonly,  not 
always,  refers  to  religious  dissimulation.  But  in  a  parable, 
whose  literal  sense  regards  secular  affairs,  the  term  ought  not  to 
be  so  much  limited. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

1.   To  meet  the  bridegroom,  £(5  «5ratvT;}!r<v  ry  wf^/pm.    Vul.  Ob., 
mam  sporiso  et  sponsw ;  to  meet  the  bridegroom  and  the  bride. 


cH.  XXV.  S.  MATTHEW.  155 

The  Sy.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions  have  the  like  addition  ;  kui  tjj? 
voix.<p?ii  is  found  in  three  MSS.  of  which  the  Cam.  is  one.  This  is 
no  support.  The  internal  evidence,  arising  from  the  customs,  is 
clearly  against  the  addition.  The  virgins  conducted  the  bride, 
as  her  companions,  from  her  father's  house.  The  bridegroom 
went  out,  from  his  own  house,  to  meet  them,  and  to  bring  her 
home  with  jay  and  festivity. 

9.  Lesl  (here  be  not  e?ioitgh  for  us  and  yon  ;  go  rather  to  them 
tcho  sell^  and  buy  for  yourselves^  l^yiTron  hk  u^Kta-t;  ^f^iv  >C  uf^tr 
■yropsvetrh  ^e  f^xX^iov  Trp®^  ra^  'xuXavToii,  kxi  ayo^uc-urs  exvTcci^.  j'j.  T. 
Not  so,  lest  there  be  not  enough  Jor  us  and  you  ;  but  go  ye 
rather  to  them  that  sell,  and  buy  for  yourselves.  Vul.  Ne  forte 
non  sufficial  nobis  et  vobis,  itepotius  advendentes,  et  emite  vobis. 
Several  interpreters  have  thought  that  there  is  an  ellipsis  in  the  ori- 
ginal. Our  translators,  who  were  of  this  number,  have  supplied 
it  by  the  words  7iot  so.  Eisner  and  others  suppose,  that  it  ought 
to  be  supplied  by  the  word  o^xrt,  or  ^MTren,  before  |M.)j5roTf,  and 
therefore  render  the  expression,  take  care,  lest  there  be  not 
enough.  But  it  concerned  themselves  surely  (not  those  who 
asked  the  favour)  to  take  care,  before  granting  it,  that  there 
should  be  a  sufficiency  for  both.  Such  an  answer  as  this  would 
not  be  a  refusal,  as  was  plainly  the  case  here,  but  a  conditional 
grant  of  the  request,  the  askers  themselves  being  made  the  judges 
of  the  condition.  The  quotation  from  Acts  v.  39.  is  nowise  ap- 
plicable. The  supply  of  ofxre  before  fiyivan  x.cti  S-ei)ft.»^oi  ivpeSiire, 
nobody  can  doubt  to  be  pertinent,  because  it  was  entirely  the 
concern  of  those  to  whom  Gamaliel  addressed  himself,  to  take 
care  that  they  did  nothing  which  might  imply  fighting  against 
God.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that,  to  make  the  words  before 
us  suit  the  sense,  it  would  be  necessary  to  supply  ^ei  sjV"*?  <^^<»- 
Tsiv,  we  must  take  care.  But  an  ellipsis,  such  as  this,  is  unex- 
ampled in  these  writers.  I  have  judged  it,  therefore,  more  rea- 
sonable to  follow  the  authors  of  the  Vul.  who  have  not  discover- 
ed any  ellipsis  in  this  passage.  The  only  thing  which  can  be 
considered  as  an  objection  is  the  ^e  in  the  second  clause.  Suffice 
it  for  answer,  that  this  particle  is  wanting  in  the  Al.  Cam.  and 
other  MSS.  of  principal  note,  as  well  as  in  the  Vul.  and  is  re- 
jected by  some  critics  of  eminence,  ancient  and  modern.  And 
even,  wore  it  allowed  to  stand,  it  would  not  be  impossible  to 
show^  that  iu  some  instances  it  is  redundant. 


156  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxv, 

13.  To  this  verse  there  is,  in  the  common  editions,  a  clause 
annexed,  which  I  have  not  translated,  ev  >i  o  o(®-  ra  av6peo7r^  t^- 
Xerxt.  E.  T.  Wherein  the  Son  of  Man  cometh.  But  it  is  want- 
ing in  so  many  MSS.  and  in  the  Vul.  Sy.  and  most  of  the  ancient 
versions,  as  well  as  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers  who  com- 
mented on  the  Gospel,  that  it  cannot,  in  a  consistency  with  the 
rules  of  criticism,  be  received.  There  is  an  evident  defect  in  the; 
next  verse, 

14.  Which  is  the  beginning  of  a  new  paragraph.  Something 
(it  is  not  said  what)  is  compared  to  a  man  who  went  abroad.. 
This  defect  is  supplied  in  the  common  version,  by  these  words. 
The  kini;dom  of  heaven  is.  In  my  opinion,  it  has  been  origin- 
ally, The  Son  of  Man  is-,  and,  from  the  mistake  of  supposing  this 
to  refer  to  the  words  preceding  (for  in  the  ancient  manner  of 
writing,  they  had  neither  points  nor  distances  between  the 
words),  has  arisen  the  interpolation  of  some  words  in  the  13th 
verse,  and  the  want  of  some  in  the  14th.  This,  I  acknowledge, 
is  but  conjecture,  though,  I  think,  a  very  probable  one.  At  any 
rate,  as  a  supply  of  some  words  must  be  made  to  v.  14th,  those 
I  have  used  are,  at  least,  as  well  adapted  to  the  words  in  con- 
nection  as  any  other  that  have  been  employed  for  the  purpose. 

26.  Malignant  and  slothful  servant,  Trevtjpe  §sXe  kxi  ojcuj^r.  E. 
T.  Thou  "kicked  and  slothful  servant.  There  are  several  words 
in  Gr.  and  indeed  in  all  languages,  which  may  be  justly  said  to 
be  nearly  synonymous,  but  not  entirely  so.  Of  this  kind  espe- 
cially are  those  epithets  which  relate  to  character,  as  x«k«?,  -Tron- 
^05,  civoy-oz^  cJix-oi,  and  some  others.  That  thev  are  sometimes  used 
promiscuously,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  And  when  a  translator 
renders  any  of  them  by  a  general  term,  as  evil,  bad,  wicked,  he 
cannot  be  said  to  mistranslate  them.  Nay  sometimes,  when  used 
without  reference  to  a  particular  quality  in  character  or  conduct, 
they  ought  to  be  so  translated.  There  is,  nevertheless,  a  real 
dift'erence  among  them :  and  one  of  them  is  fitted  for  marking, 
more  especially,  one  species,  or  one- degree,  of  depravity,  and 
another  for  marking  another.  A^tx/x;,  for  example,  in  its  strictest 
signification,  is  unjust,  uyofJLs^,  lawless,  criminal.  The  first  re- 
lates more  to  a  man's  principles  of  acting,  the  second  to  his 
actions  themselves,  considered  as  open  violations  of  law  ;  xocxs?, 
when  applied  to  character,  answers  nearly  to  our  word  vicious. 
and  iT(syj)^o5,  to  malicious,  or  malignant ;  xetKo?  is  accordingly  p^*^- 


cH.  XXV.  S.  MATTHEW.  157 

perly  opposed  to  ivapiTot;,  virtuous,  or  ^iKxioi,  righteous,  for  the 
former  term  docs  not  occur  in  Scripture;  vonfioq  to  ciya,6oi,  good. 
Kcixtcc  is  vice,  Ts-ovtjpix  malice  or  malignity.  The  use  of  these  words 
in  the  Gospel,  will  be  found  pretty  conformable  to  the  account 
BOW  given.  Thus,  in  ch.  xxiv.  48.  the  servaet,  who  not  only  neg- 
lected his  master's  business,  but  ill-treated  his  fellow^-servants, 
and  rioted  with  debauchees,  is  very  properly  denominated,  yjx,x.oi 
^aXei,  a  vicious  servant.  The  bad  servant,  in  this  parable,  ap- 
pears in  a  different  light.  We  learn  nothing  of  his  revellings  or 
debaucheries ;  but,  first,  of  his  sloth,  M'hich  entitles  him  to  the 
epithet  eKv>ipe,  and,  secondly,  of  the  malignity  of  his  disposition, 
shown  in  the  unprovoked  abuse  which,  under  pretence  of  vindi- 
cating his  own  conduct,  he  threw  upon  his  master.  The  cruel  and 
inexorable  is  also  called  TrovTiptx;,  ch.  xx.  32.  Let  it  be  remarked 
also,  that  a  malignant,  that  is,  an  envious  eye,  is  Trovttpoi,  not  Kcutoi 
nfidoiXfMi,  that  the  disposition  of  the  Pharisees  to  our  Lord,  is  ch. 
xxii.  18.  called  -Trovtipict,  and  that  the  devil  is  commonly  termed 
o  TTovijpoi;,  not  0  xcucoi.  Malice  is  the  most  distinguishing  feature 
in  his  charactep;  but  vice,  which  seems  more  connected  with  hu- 
man  nature,  is  not  so  properly  applied  to  an  unembodied  spirit. 
It  may  be  said.  Is  not  then  the  evil  one  too  vague  a  transla- 
tion of  «  TTovTjpoi  ?  I  acknowledge  it  is  :  but  have  adopted  it  merely 
because  it  is  hazardous,  in  a  term  become  so  common,  to  depart 
from  established  custom.  The  Gr.  o  ^<re/3oAo5  does  not  correspond 
exactly  to  the  Ileb.  Satan  ;  yet,  as  the  Seventy  had  employed  it, 
the  penmen  of  the  N.  T.  did  not  judge  it  necessary  to  change  it. 
It  is  true,  however,  in  general,  that  there  is  much  more  justness 
in  the  epithets  employed  in  the  Gospel,  than  is  commonly  at- 
tended  to.  Too  many,  in  translating,  seem  to  have  no  other  aim, 
in  regard  to  these,  than  when  the  epithet  is  expressive  ©f  a  bad 
quality,  to  select  one  to  answer  to  it,  as  opprobrious  as  the  lan- 
guage they  write,  can  afford  them.  I  am  far  from  saying,  that 
this  was  the  way  of  those  to  whom  we  owe  the  common  version. 
Though  sometimes  the  import  of  an  original  term  might  have 
been  more  exactly  hit,  they  rarely  fail  to  express  themselves  so 
as  to  preserve  propriety  with  regard  to  the  speaker.  Now,  it 
deserves  to  be  remarked,  that  though  our  Lord,  in  his  rebukes 
of  the  hardened  offender  (for  it  is  only  of  such  I  am  speaking), 
often  expresses  himself  with  sharpness,  it  is  always  with  justice 
o    r,.  IV.  20 


158  NOTES  ON  OH.  xxv. 

and  dignity.  In  some  translations,  on  the  contrary,  he  is  made 
to  express  himself  so  as  we  should  rather  call  passionately.  In 
the  passage  under  review,  one  makes  him  begin  his  reply  with, 
Thou  base  and  indolent  slave  ;  another  with,  Thou  vile  slothful 
zcretch.  Bat  do  we  ever  hear  such  expressions,  except  from  one 
in  a  violent  passion  ?  And  can  any  body  seriously  imagine  that 
it  adds  weight  to  the  sentence,  of  a  judge,  to  suppose  that  he 
spoke  it  in  a  rage  ?  Our  Lord  spoke  the  language  of  reproof ;  such 
interpreters  make  him  speak  the  language  of  abuse.  Allow  me 
to  add  that,  in  his  language,  there  is  more  of  pointed  severity 
than  in  theirs.  The  reason  is,  his  words  touch  the  particular 
evils  ;  tlieirs  signify  only  evil  in  genera!,  in  a  high  degree,  and 
are  much  more  expressive  of  the  resentment  and  contempt  of  the 
speaker,  than  even  of  the  demerit  of  the  person  addressed.  The 
terms,  base,  vile,  slave,  wretch,  used  thus,  are  manifestly  of  this 
sort.  Like  rascal,  villain,  scoundrel,  they  are  jvhat  we  proper, 
ly  call  scurrility.  To  abound  in  appellatives  of  this  sort,  is  not 
to  be  severe,  but  abusive.  Such  translators  invert  that  funda. 
mental  rule  in  translating,  to  make  their  pen  the  organ  of  their 
autbor  for  conveying  his  sentiments  to  their  readers;  they,  on 
the  contrary,  make  their  author,  and  the  most  dignified  charac 
ters  recorded  by  him,  their  instruments  for  conveying  to  the 
world,  not  only  their  opinions,  but  even  the  asperities  of  their 
passions. 

27.  IVith  interest,  tw  toym.  E.  T.  With  usury.  Anciently 
the  import  of  the  word  usury,  was  no  other  than  profit,  whether 
great  or  small,  allowed  to  the  lender  for  the  use  of  borrowed 
money.  As  this  practice  often  gave  rise  to  great  extortion,  the 
very  name  at  length  became  odious.  The  consideration,  that  the 
Jews  were  prohibited,  by  their  law,  from  taking  any  profit  from 
one  another  for  money  lent  (though  they  were  allowed  to  take 
it  from  strangers),  contributed  to  increase  the  odium.  When 
Christian  commonwealths  judged  it  necessary  to  regulate  this 
matter  by  law,  they  gave  to  such  profit,  as  doe*^  not  exceed  the 
legal,  the  softer  name  of  interest;  since  which  time  usury  h^?. 
come  to  signify  solely  extravagant  profit  disallowed  by  law;  and 
-which,  therefore,  it  is  criminal  in  the  borrower  to  give,  and  in 
the  lender  to  take.  As  it  is  not  this  kind  of  profit  that  is  her© 
meant,  the  word  usury  is  now  become  improper. 


S.  MATTHEW.  159 

29  From  him  that  hath  7iaf.  Mr.  iv.  24,  25.  N. 
^  That  zchkh  he  hath,  i  ^x--  In  a  considerable  number  of 
MSS.  but  fev/  of  anv  note,  it  is  c  ^o.h  .;««v.  Agreeable  to  wh.ch 
is  the  Vul.  quod  vidctnr  habere,  also  the  second  Sy.  and  the 
Sax  This  expression  has  probably  been  borrowed  by  some 
copyist  as  more  correct  from  L.  viii.  18.  where  its  genuineness 
cannot  be  questioned. 

34    Prom  the  formation  of  the  isorld,  ct.voKX.raJ^oX^iy.oTi^a.    E. 
T   From  the  foundation  of  the  world.     Vul.   J  constitutione 
mundi      Ar.  A  fandamcnto  mundi.     Er.   Ab  exordio  mundi. 
Zn    A  primordio  mundi.     Cas.   Ab  orhe  condito.     Be.  Ajado 
mundi  fundamento      It  is  very  uncommon  to  find  every  one  of 
these  translators   adopting  a  ditferent  phrase,  and  yet,  perhaps, 
more  uncommon  to  find  that,  with  so  great  a  variety  in  the  ex- 
pression, there  is  no  ditference  in  the  sense.  If  any  of  the  above, 
mentioned  versions  be  more  exceptionable  than  the  rest,  it  is  that 
^•hich  renders  ^ccrc^Qo?.^  foundation  :  for,  first,  this  term,  except 
in  the  sublimer  sorts  of  poetry,  is  not  very  happily  applied  to  the 
world,  in  which  there  is  nothing  that  can  be  said  to  correspond 
to  the  foundation  of  a  house.     Secondly,  the  word  is  never  used 
in  Scripture  to  express  that  part  of  a  house,  or  edifice  of  any 
kind,  which  we  call  the  foundation  :  for  though  there  is  frequent 
mention  of  this  part  of  a  building,  the  word  is  never  KxrxQcXv,  but 
always  ^ff.£A(«5,  or  some  synonymous  term  ;  and  this  observation 
holds  equally  of  the  N.  T.  the  Sep.  and  the  Jewish  Apocryphal 
Avritings.     I  admitted  that,  in  the  highly  figurative  style  of  the 
Heb.  poets,  such  an  image  as  that  of  laying  the  foundation  might 
be  applied  to  the  world.     I  find  it  in  the  O.  T.  twice  applied  to 
the  earth,  which  is  nearly  the  same;  but  it  deserves  our  notice, 
that  in  neither  of  the  places  is  the  word  in  the  Sep.  >s«T«f«A-^,  or 
any  of  its  derivatives.    One  of  the  passages  is  Ps.  cii.  25.  (in  the 
Sep.  ci.  26.),  Of  old  thou  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earthy 
K«t'  «?>ia?  nv  y;)v  iSei^e?^'6i~xi  ;  the  other  quite  similar.  Is.  xlviii. 
13.  where  the  same  verb   is   used.     Thirdly,  in  the  only  place 
where  ,c«r«f<,A»  occurs  in  Ilollenistic  use,  as  applied  to  a  house 
(which  is  in  the  Apocrypha,  2  Mac.  ii.  29.),   it  is  so  far  from 
meaning  the  foundation,  that  it  denotes  the  whole  structure  as 
contradistinguished  to  the  several  parts.     See  the  passage  in  Gr. 
and  in  the  common  translation,  where  )c«T«foA>j  is  rightly  ren. 
dered  building. 


J  00  NOTES  ON  tH.  XXVI. 

36.  Ye  assisted  me,  eTrsFKsfpxFB-s  f^s.  E.  T.  Ye  visited  me.  The 
Eng.  word  visited  does  not  sufficiently  express  the  import  of  the 
Gr.  verb,  when  the  subject  of  discourse  is  a  sick  person,  or  one 
in  distress.  In  such  cases,  eTrnrKeTrronxt  is  strictly  visito  ut  opem 
feram.  That  more  is  meant  here  than  a  visit  of  friendship,  for 
giving  consolation,  is  probable  from  the  expression  used  in  the 
next  clause,  jjA^sts  ^rpss  ^s,  which  is  intended  to  denote  such  friend- 
ly visits,  being  often  all  that  a  Christian  brother  can  do  for  pri- 
soners. Some  late  translators  render  iTria-y^e-^a.frB't  f^i,  ye  took  care 
of  me.  This,  I  think,  is  in  the  opposite  extreme,  as  it  is  hardly 
applicable  to  any,  but  the  physician  or  the  nurse. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

3.  The  clause  x.u,i  oi  y^ccf/.f^a.reii  is  wanting  in  a  few  noted  MSS. 
The  authors  of  the  Vul.  and  of  some  other  versions,  have  not 
read  it  in  their  copies.  But  as  it  is  found  in  the  Sy.  and  the 
much  greater  number  both  of  MSS.  and  of  ancient  versions,  and 
is  not  unsuitable  to  the  scope  of  the  place,  I  have  retained  it. 

^  Palace,  civXyjv.  Though  ctvXt)  strictly  signifies  an  open  court 
before  the  entry  of  a  house  or  palace  (see  note  on  v.  58.),  it  is 
not  uncommon  to  employ  it  by  synecdoche  for  the  palace. 

5.  Not  during  the  festival.,  f^i;  ti  r-/)  loprij.  E.  T.  Not  on  the 
feast  day.  As  there  is  nothing  in  the  original  answering  to  the 
word  day,  the  term  h^T>]  may  include  the  whole  festival ;  to  wit, 
the  day  of  the  paschal  sacrifice,  and  the  seven  days  of  unleaven- 
ed bread  that  followed  it.  As,  therefore,  it  is  not  certain  that  one 
day  only  is  spoken  of,  it  is  better  to  leave  it  in  the  same  latitude 
in  which  we  found  it.  Festival  may  either  denote  the  first  day, 
which  was  properly  the  day  of  celebrating  the  passover,  or  it 

may  include  all  the  eight  days. 

e 
7.   Balsam,  y-v^a.     E.  T.  Ointment.     But  it  is  evid  nt,  from 

what  is  said  here,  and  in  other  places,  both  in  the  O.  T.  and  in 

the  New,  that  their  f/.vp<x.  were  not  of  the  consistency  of  what  we 

denominate  ointment,  but  were  in^  a  state  of  fluidity  like  oil, 

though  somewhat  thicker. 


GH.  XXVI.  S.  MATTHEW.  161' 

12.  It  is  to  embalm  me,  tt^o^  to  e)iTu(pi»a-xi  (*.e.  E.  T.  For  my 
burial.  The  Trpoi;  to,  in  several  instances,  expresses  rather  t!i£ 
intention  of  Providence,  than  the  intention  of  the  person  spoken 
of.  This  circumstance  is  mentioned  by  our  Lord  here,  with  a 
view  to  suggest  the  nearnesri  of  his  funeral.  For  the  import  of 
the  word  £VT«ip««5-<«/,  see  the  note  on  J.  xix.  40. 

15.  Thirty  shekels,  rfuciMvroi,  x^yvpicc.  Diss.  VIII.  P,  I.  §  10. 

16.  To  deliver  him  up,  Ivu  uvrov  ttx/ixom.  E.  T.  To  betray  him 
We  say  a  man  has  sold  what  he  has  concluded  a  bargain  about, 
though  he  has  not  delivered  it  to  the  purchaser.  In  like  manner, 
Judas  betrayed  his  master  to  the  pontiffs,  when  the  terms  were 
settled  between  them,  though  he  did  not  then  put  them  in  pos- 
session of  his  person. 

22.  Began  every  one  of  them  to  say,  np'^cctro  Xr/&iv  avru  iKu?-^^ 
ccvrav.     Mr.  v.  17.   N. 

26.  The  loaf,  rov  aprov.  •  E.  T.  Bread.  Had  it  been  «^roy, 
without  the  article,  it  might  have  been  rendered  either  bread,  ov 
a  loaf.  But  as  it  has  the  article,  we  must,  if  we  would  fully  ex- 
press the  sense,  say  the  loaf.  Probably,  on  such  occasions,  07ie 
loaf,  larger  or  smaller,  according  to  the  company,  was  part  of 
the  accustomed  preparation.  This  practice,  at  least  in  the  apos- 
tolic a;;i^,  soems  to  have  been  adopted  in  the  church,  in  comrae- 
morafiii^  Christ's  death.  To  this,  it  is  very  probable,  the  Apos- 
tle alludes,  1  Cor.  X.  17.  'On  h^  upTai,  ev  s-uf^x  ot  weAAo*  eT/it,iV'  oi 
yoii  TTMrii  ty^  ra  £vo?  ct^ra  ttere^of^sv.  That  is,  Because  there  is  one 
loaf.,  ret',  though  many,  are  one  body  ;  for  we  all  partake  of  the 
one  loaf,  it  is  in  the  common  translation.  For  we,  being  many 
are  one  bread  and  one  body ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that 
one- bread.  Passing  at  present  some  other  exceptions  which 
might  be  made  to  this  version,  there  is  no  propriety  in  saying 
one  bread,  more  than  in  saying  one  zcater,  or  one  zcine.  Ch.  iv 
3.  N. 

2  Having  given  thanks,  et-Aayijc-^s.  But  the  number  of  MSS, 
many  of  them  of  principal  note,  editions,  fathers,  &c.  that  read 
£vx,xpi?-iirxi,  is  so  great,  as  to  remove  every  doubt  of  its  being 
genuine.  Mill  and  Wet.  both  receive  it.  Indeed  it  may  be  said 
to  be  of  little  consequence  here  which  way  we  read,  as  the  two 


162  NOTES  ON  cii.  xxvr, 

words  are  admitted  Ijy  critics  to  be,  in  this  application,  synony.. 
mous.     Ch.  xiv.  19.  N. 

28.  Of  the  new  covenant^  rv,c,  Kximji  t/iat^jjKjj?.     Diss.  V.  P.  III. 

29.  Of  the  product  of  the  vine,  e::.  rara  m  yswijtcxTl^  t^j?  ctf^.- 
■^e>iii.  E.  T.  Of  this  fruit  of  the  vine.  But  the  Gr.  term  for 
fruit  is  KxpTT^'^.  The  word  ymtif^u,  I  have  literally  rendered.  Be- 
sides, The  fruit  of  the  vine  is  not  zi-ine,  but  grapes ;  and  we 
speak  of  eating,  but  never  of  drinking,  fruit.  In  the  phrase 
corresponding  to  this  in  the  Heb.  rituals,  a  term  is  employed 
that  commonly  signifies/rweY.  But  our  original  is  the  language 
of  the  Evangelist,  not  that  of  the  Rabbies.  The  product  is  here 
equivalent  to  this  product ;  because  it  cannot  be  this  individual, 
but  this  in  kind,  that  is  meant. 

2  Until  the  day,  zchen  I  shall  drink  it  zoith  you,  in  my  Fa- 
therms  kingdom.  I  confess,  I  do  not  see  the  difficulty  which  some 
fancy  they  see  in  these  words.  That  the  expression  is  figurative, 
■will  not,  I  believe,  be  denied  :  yet  not  more  so  than  the  terms 
Jire  and  brimstone,  as  applied  to  the  future  doom  of  the  wicked. 
If  we  have  not  positive  evidence  that  there  will  be  any  thing  in 
heaven  analogous  to  eating  and  drinking,  as  little  have  we,  that 
there  will  not.  And  there  is  at  least  no  absurdity  in  the  suppo- 
sition. As  far  as  our  acquaintance  with  living  creatures  extends, 
means  are  always  necessary  for  the  support  of  life.  That  no 
means  are  requisite  in  heaven,  (if  it  be  a  truth)  is  not  self  evi« 
dent.  It  will  hardly  be  pretended  that  it  is  expressly  revealed  ; 
and  as  yet  we  have  no  experience  on  the  subject.  We  know, 
there  will  be  nothing  analogous  to  marriage.  Where  the  inhabi- 
tants are  immortal,  there  is  no  need  of  fresh  supplies.  But  it 
does  not  appear  implausible,  that  the  use  of  means  for  the  preser- 
vation of  life  may  constitute  one  distinction  between  the  immor- 
tal existence  of  angels,  and  men,  and  that  of  him  who,  by  way 
of  eminence,  is  said  (1  Tim.  vi.  16.)  alone  to  have  immortality. 
Difficulties  in  scripture  arise  often  from  a  contradiction,  neither 
to  reason,  nor  to  experience;  but  to  the  presumptions  we  have 
rashly  taken  up,  in  matters  whereof  we  have  no  knowledge. 

30.  After  the  hymn,  Cf^r^o-xvm.  E.  T.  When  they  had  sung 
an  hymn.  But  If^veu  may  be  either  /  sing,  or  /  recite  a  hymn. 
In  the  latter  way  it  has  been  understood  by  the  author  of  the 
Vul,  and  by  Ar.  who  render  it,  Et  hymno  dicto.     Cas.  to  the 


CH.  x^vT..  S.  MATTHE^Y.  163 

same  purpose,  Deindc  dictis  laudibus.  But  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Pise. 
andCal.  Qnum  hymnum  cednissent.  All  the  modern  transla- 
tions 1  have  seen,  except  Lu.'s,  and  such  as  are  made  from  he 
Vul.  follow  these  last;  the  Sy.  is  equally  amb.guo«s  with  the 
original,  and  so  are  most  of  the  Oriental  versions,  and  the  M. 
G  \s  it  is  evident,  however,  that  the  words  are  suscept.ble 
of  either  interpretation,  I  have  followed  neither  but  used  an  ex- 
pression of  equal  laXitude  with  the  original.  have  chosen  to 
say  the  hunm,  rather  than  a  hymn  ;  as  it  is  a  known  fact,  that 
particular  Psalms,  namely,  the  cxiv.  and  four  following,  were 
regularly  used  after  the  paschal  supper. 

31  /  shall  prove  a  stumbling-stone  to  you  all,  ^«vn?  J^«5 
....S.X,c-S,re.Bs  .  .^0..  E.  T.  JU  ye  shall  be  offended  because 
of  me  The  word  snare  answers  equally  well  w  .th  stumbling. 
Le'ior  conveying  the  sentiment ;  (Ch.  v.  29.  N.)  yet  as  there 
niay  be  here  an  allusion  to  the  passage  in  the  Psalms  (m,  otten 
quoted  in  the  N.  T.)  representing  our  Lord  as  a  select  and  chi.f 
corner-stone  which  to  many  would  prove  a  stone  of  stumbling, 
^erpc.  ..cc.^.x^,  I  have  been  induced  to  prefer  a  closer  interpre- 
tation  in  this  place, 

38  My  soul  is  overxohelmed  zcith  a  deadly  anguish,  ^epav^o? 
.f»  V  ^vz>,  f^«  ^'«5  .^«v«r«.  E.  T.  My  soul  is  exceeding  sorrozc. 
fuL  even  unto  death.  But  this  expression,  unto  death,  is  rather 
indefinite,  and  seems  to  imply  a  sorrow  that  would  continue  till 
death  ;  whereas,  the  import  of  the  original  is,  such  a  sorrow  as 
is  sul1\cient  to  cause  death,  that  is,  deadly.  Cas.  has  expressed 
the  sense  thus.  In  tanto  sum  animi  dolore  ut  emoriar.  The  last 
clause  sufficiently  explains    £w?  B-Mam. 

39.  Not  as  Izcould,  hut  as  thou  zcilf,  az  ^i  tya  5£A«,  aAA'  ^5 
c-v.  E..T.  Not  as  lunll,  but  as  thou  zcilt.  As  the  Heb.  has  no 
subjunctive  or  potential  mood,  the  indicative,  in  conformity  to 
the  Oriental  idiom,  is  frequently  used  by  the  penmen  of  the  N. 
T.  in  the  sense  of  the  subjunctive.  Our  Lord's  zcill,  in  effect, 
perfectly  coincided  with  his  Father's;  because  it  was  his  su- 
preme desire,  that  his  Father  should  be  obeyed,  rather  than  that 
any  inclination  of  his  own  should  be  gratified.  The  first  clause, 
therefore,  ought  to  express,  not  what  was  in  reality,  as  mat- 
ters stood,  but  what  would  have  Jjeen,  his  desire,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  his  Father's  will  did  not  interfere.     This  is  properly 


164  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXVI. 


expressed  by  L.  Cl.   Non  comme  je  le  vouclrois,  mais  cohime  tu 
le  veux,  which  is  the  way  I  have  adopted. 

45.  Sleep  on  nozc,  and  taTce  your  rest,  Kotdiuain  to  Mittov,  f^xi 
eivci7rct.v£i!-3-e.  Some  late  interpreters  translate  this  with  an  inter- 
rogation, thus,  Db  ye  still  sleep  on^  and  take  your  rest?  This 
appears,  at  first,  to  suit  better  the  words  which  follow,  ^Wse, 
let  us  be  going.  I  cannot,  however,  help  favouring  th".  more 
common,  which  is  also  the  more  ancient,  translation.  The  phrase 
TO  ^of^ov,  and  simply  Aoitov,  when  it  relates  to  time,  seems  always 
to  denote  the  future.  There  are  only  three  other  places  in  Scrip- 
ture, where  it  has  clearly  a  relation  to  time,  and  in  regard  to 
these  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  first  is  Acts  xxvii.  20.  A«<. 
Tov  ■zre^f/ipeiTo  Trairx  eXTrii  th  o-u^eTB-xi  riyMi^.  E.  T.  All  hope  that  lOC 
should  be  saved  was  then  taken  aicay.  The  version  would  have 
been  still  better  if  closer,  and  instead  of  then,  it  had  been  said 
thenceforth.  It  is  rendered  by  Cas.  Cceiera  spes  omnis  salutis 
nostra;  sublata  erat.  2  Tim.  iv.  8.  where  it  is  rendered  by  our 
translators  henceforth,  and  Heb.  x.  13.  where  it  is  rendered /row 
henceforth.  There  is  reason,  therefore,  here  to  retain  the  com- 
mon version  ;  nor  is  there  any  inconsistency  between  this  order, 
which  contains  an  ironical  reproof,  very  natural  in  those  circum- 
stances, and  the  exhortation  which  follows,  Arise.  Ch.  xxiii. 
32.  N. 

2  Of  sinners,  afj^x^TcaXm.  The  Gr.  word  expresses  more  here 
than  is  implied  in  the  Eng.  term.  Our  Lord  thereby  signified, 
that  he  was  to  be  consigned  to  the  heathen,  whom  the  Jews  call- 
ed, byway  of  eminence,  «,m,os»t»Ao<,  because  idolaters.  See  Gal. 
ii.  15.  For  a  similar  reason  they  were  also  called  ctvajiMi,  lau- 
less,  impious,  as  destitute  of  the  law  of  God.  The  expression 
hot,  x.^f)Mv  uvou^m  (Acts  ii.  23.),  ought  therefore  to  be  rendered, 
not  as  in  the  E.  T.  by  wicked  hands,  but  by  the  hands  of  the 
xcicked,  or  rather  impious. 

47.   Clubs,  IvMn.      L.  xxii.  52.  ^  N. 

50.  Friend,  hixifiB.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 

52.  Whoever  hath  recourse  to  the  szDord — a  proverbial  ex- 
pression not  to  be  rigidly  interpreted.  Such  sayings  ^re  under- 
stood to  suggest  what  frequently,  not  what  always,  happens.  It 
seems  to  have  been  introduced  at  this  time,  in  order  to  signify  to 


CH.  XXVI.  S.  MATTHEW.  165 

the  disciples  that  such  weapons  as  swords  were  not  those  by 
•which  the  Messiah's  cause  was  to  be  defended. 

55.  A  robber,  t^ysw.     E.  T.  A  thief.  Diss.  XL  P.  II.  §  6, 

58.  The  court  of  the  high  priesfs  house,  Tr,^  a,vM^  fa  ec^x'^?^' 
ui.  E.  T.  The  high  /iriesVs  palace.  From  v.  69.  as  well  as 
from  what  we  are  told  in  the  other  Gospels,  it  is  evident  that 
Pt'ter  was  only  in  the  court  without,  which,  though  enclosed  on 
all  sides,  was  open  above,  nor  was  it  any-wise  extraoidinary  to 
kindle  a  fire  in  such  a  place.     L.  xxii.  55,  N. 

2  Officers,  uTTti^erxig.  E.  T.  Scrviivls.  'jTr/t^eTxt  means,  com- 
monly, servants  of  the  public,  or  official  servants  of  those  iu  au- 
thority, the  officers  of  a  judicatory. 

59.  And  the  elders,  y,xt  ot  TroiT^vre^oi.  This  clause  is  wanting 
in  the  Vul.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions,  and  in  two  or  three  MSS. 
It  is  not  wanting  iti  the  Sax.  which  makes  it  probable  that  the 
Itc.  read  as  we  do, 

60.  B/it  though  mavy  jalse  zoitnesses  appeared,  they  fomid  it 
not,  KXt  ax'  ev^ov,  Kdi  ^roAAiwv  i^$v^of*a^Tv^a)v  ■x^otriXSovrm,  ay^  (v=cv. 
The  repetition  of  ax,'  e^fov,  in  the  common  copies,  is  very  unlike 
the  manner  of  this  writer.  In  the  Vul,  Sy.  Cop.  Ara.  and  Sax. 
the  phrase  is  found  only  once.  It  is  not  repeated  in  the  Com. 
nor  in  some  ancient  MSS,  As  it  makes  no  addition  to  the  sense^ 
and  does  not  perfectly  agree  with  the  strain  of  the  narrative,  I 
have  followed  the  example  of  some  of  the  best  ancient  translators, 
in  avoiding  the  repetition. 

63.  I  adjure  thee,  e|<3f>c(^«  a-£.  This  appears  to  have  been  the 
Jewish  manner  of  administering  an  oath.  The  Heb.  y^mn  hish- 
biangj  which  in  the  O,  T.  is  commonly,  by  our  interpreters,  ren. 
dered,  to  make  one  sizear,  is  justly  translated,  by  the  Seventy, 
o^y.t^a,  or  i^o^Ki^u.  The  name  of  the  deity  sworn  by  was  subjoin- 
ed, sometimes  with,  sometimes  without,  a  preposition.  Thus, 
Gen,  xxiv.  3.  where  we  have  an  account  of  the  oath  administered 
by  Abraham  to  his  steward,  which  is  rendered  in  the  Eng.  Bible, 
1  isill  make  thee  swear  by  the  Lord,  the  God  of  heaven,  and  the 
God  of  the  earth,  is  thus  expressed  in  the  Sep.  i%6^y.>.6)  crs  Kv^iov 
rov  &eav  ra  aoxva  km  rr/;  yr^ :  /  adjure  thee  by  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  heaven  and  earth.  After  such'  adjuration,  by  a  magistrate  or 
lawful  superior,  the  answer  returned  by  the  person  adjured,  was 

VOL.  IV.  21 


166  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXVII' 


an  answer  upon  oath  ;  a  false  answer  was  perjury;  and  even  the 
silence  of  the  person  adjured  was  not  deemed  innocent.  Many 
examples  of  this  use  of  the  simple  verb  o^y.t^u,  which  is  of  the 
same  import  with  the  compound,  may  be  discovered  by  consult- 
ing Trommius'  Concordance.     Mr.  v.  7.  N. 

64.  At  the  right  hand  of  the  Almighty^  1%.  ^e^iani  t-^?  S'vvxi^sui. 
E.  T.  On  the  right  hand  of  power.  The  Ileb.  word  n"*i3Jn  hage. 
biirah,  power.,  or  might,  in  the  abstract,  that  is,  omnipotence^  or 
supreme  power,  was  become,  with  Jewish  writers,  a  common  ap- 
pellation for  God.  As  the  abstract,  here,  does  not  suit  the  idi- 
om of  our  tongue,  and  as,  in  meaning,  it  is  equivalent  to  our 
word,  the  Almighty^  I  have  used  this  terra  in  the  translation. 
The  Vul.  says,  Virtutis  Dei. 

65.  Blasphemy.  Diss.  X.  P.  II. 

68.  Divine  to  us^  jr^a^^jntisrov  )jf^t]i.  E.  T.  Prophesy  itnto  us. 
But  the  Eng.  verb,  to  prophesy,  always  denotes  to  foretell  what 
is  future:  here  a  declaration  is  required  concerning  what  was 
past.  The  verb,  to  divine,  is  applicable  to  either,  as  it  denotes, 
simply,  to  declare  any  truth  not  discoverable  by  the  natural 
powers  of  man.  From  the  Evangelists  Mr.  and  L.  we  learn  that 
our  Lord  was  at  this  time  blindfolded. 

71.  Said  to  them,  This  man  too  was  there,  >£yu  roni  exer  Ken 
{/t(^  i]v.  E.  T.  Said  unto  them  that  were  there,  This  fellois  was 
also.  But  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  some 
of  the  most  ancient,  read  Xiyn  xvreii;'  Ex.£i  )^  ii'r<^  jjv.  The  Sy. 
and  Go.  have  read  so.  It  is  in  the  Com.  and  Aid.  editions.  It 
is  supported  by  Origen  and  Cbr.  and  preferred  by  Gro.  Mill  and 
Wetstein.  I  might  add  that,  in  the  common  reading,  the  adv. 
£X£i  is  absurdly  superfluous  ;  for.  who  can  imagine  that  she  ad. 
dressed  herself  to  those  who  were  not  there  ? 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

2.  The  procurator.     Diss,  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

5.  Strangled  himself  uTrny^are.  E.  T.  Hanged  himself.  The 
Gr.  word  plainly  denotes  strangling  ;  but  does  not  say  how,  by 
hanging,  or  otherwise.     It  is  quite  a  diflferent  term  that  is  used 


CH.  XXVII.  S.  MATTHEW.  1«7 

in  those  places  where  hanging  is  mentioned.     It  may  be  render- 
ed, zcds  strangled,  or  was  suffocated.     I  hare,  in  the  above  ver- 
sion, followed  the  Sy.  The  common  translation  follows  the  Vul. 
which  says,  laqueo  se  suspendii.      Wa.  icas  choked  loiih  grief. 
This  interpreter  does  not  deny  that  strangled  expresses  the  com- 
mon meaning  of  the  Gr,  word  in  classical  authors.     The  exam, 
pies  he  produces  in  support  of  his  version,  serve  only  to  show 
(hat,  in  a  few  obscure  instances,  the  word  inai/  (not  jniist)  iiave 
the  signification  which  he  assigns  to  it.     There  are  only  two  ex- 
amples wherein  it  occurs  in  the  Sop.      One  is  2  Sam.  xvii.  '23. 
where  it  Is  applied  to  Ahithophel,  in  which  he  does  not  seem  to 
question  the  justness  of  the  common  version  :  the  other  is  Tob. 
iii.  10.  Mhere  it  is  spoken  of  Sara  the  daughter  of  llaguel.   This 
i^assage,  that  interpreter  thinks,  clearly  confirms  (and  1  think, 
it  clearly  confutes)  his  version.     That  the  daughter's  suicide 
would  bring  dishonour  on  the  father  may  be  understood  by  any 
body  ;  but  her  d)  ing  of  grief,  in  consequence  of  the  bad  treat- 
ment she  received  from  strangers,  might  be  to  a  parent  a  subject 
of  affliction,  but  couW  liot  be  a  matter  of  reproach. 

6.  The  sacred  treasiirjj^rov  xo^Sxm)i.  E.  T,  The  treasury.  Tiie 
word,  in  the  original,  occurs  in  no  other  passage  in  Scripture. 
Josephus  makes  use  of  it,  and  interprets  it,  tovU^ov  ^ma-ocv^ov.  It 
is  formed  from  xe^^av,  originally  Hob.  which  also  occurs  but 
once  in  the  Gr.  form,  Mr.  vii.  11.  and  signifies  that  which  is 
given  or  devoted  io  God.  The  unlawfulness  of  putting  the  thir- 
ty shekels  into  this  repository,  arose  from  (his  single  circum- 
stance, that  it  contained  the  treasure  consecrated  to  God. 

8.  That  field  is  called  the  Jield  of  blood,  iKXrM  «  cty^®^  ey-nv®- 
u.y^^  aif^uT©^.  Vul.  Vocatus  est  ager  file  ilaccldama,  hoc  est 
ager  sanguitiis.  To  the  words,  Haceldama,  hoc  est,  as  there  is 
nothing  that  corresponds  in  any  MS.  or  translation,  except  the 
Sax.  and  as  they  are  quite  superfluous,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  they  are  an  interpolation  from  Acts  i.  19.  With  insertions 
of  this  kind,  the  Latins  have  been  thought,  even  by  some  of  their 
own  critics,  more  chargeable  than  the  Greeks. 

9.  Jeremiah.  The  words  here  quoted  are  not  in  any  prophe- 
cy of  Jeremiah  extant.  But  they  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to 
the  words  of  Zechariah.  xi.   12.  13.     One  MS.  not  of  CJCat  f.c. 


168  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxyii. 

count,  lias  Zex'i^tii.  Another  adds  no  name  to  w^a^sjTs.  There  is 
none  added  in  the  first  Sy.  version.  And  it  would  seem,  from  a 
remark  of  Augustine,  that  some  copies,  in  his  time,  named  no 
Prophet.  But  as  all  the  other  MSS.  now  extant,  even  those  of 
the  greatest  antiquity,  the  Vul.  and  the  other  ancient  versions, 
the  Sy.  alone  excepted,  all  the  earliest  ecclesiastical  writers, 
read  just  as  we  do,  in  the  common  editions,  I  did  not  think  a 
deviation  from  these  could  be  denominated  other  than  an  emen- 
dation merely  conjectural. 

9,  10,  "  The  thir/jj  shekels,  the  jyrice  at  zohkh  he  zcas  va~ 
"  lard,  I  took,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me,  from  the  sons  of  Is. 
"  rael,  who  gave  them  for  the  potter''  s  field.''''  Ea^S^ov  ros  t^ixkov^ 
T«  x^yv^tx,  Tr,v  T(fA.r,v  ra  retifMjfA.evii,  ov  erif^rxvro,  cfTro  vtav  \t^xiX'  koh 

T.  Thei/  took  the  thirtjj  pieces  of  silver,  the  price  of  him  that 
was  valued  ;  whom  they  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value,  and 
gave  them  for  the  potter''  s  field,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me.  EA«- 
C«v  may  be  either  the  first  person  singular,  or  the  third  person 
plural.  The  latter  hypothesis  has  been  adopted  by  the  Vul.  and 
the  majority  of  translators,  ancient  and  modern.  The  former 
has  been  preferred  by  the  Sy.  and  the  Per.  translators.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  that  their  way  of  rendering  gives  more  perspi- 
cuity, as  well  as  more  grammatical  congruity,  to  the  sentence. 
As  the  words  stand  in  most  versions,  they  appear  to  represent 
the  action  of  one,  as  the  obedience  of  an  appointment  given  to 
another.  Thus  :  They  took  the  silver  pieces,  and  gave  them — 
as  the  Lord  appointed  [not  them,  but]  we.  This  incongruity, 
and  the  obscurity  arising  from  it,  are  entirely  removed  by  the 
other  interpretation,  which  has  also  this  advantage,  that  it  is 
more  conformable  to  the  expression  of  Zechariah  referred  to, 
eXxQav  THi  r^ixKo-JTx  x^yv^m.  So  it  runs  in  the  Sep.  Now  there 
is  no  ambiguity  in  the  Heb.  verb,  as  there  Is  in  the  Gr.  The  for- 
mer cannot  be  rendered,  but  by  the  first  person  singular.  Thi? 
would  certainly  have  determined  all  translators  to  prefer  this 
manner,  as  being  at  once  more  conformable  to  Syntax,  to  com- 
mon sense,  and  to  the  import  of  the  passage,  to  which  the  allusion 
is  made.  But  there  arose  a  difficulty  from  the  verb  i^mkxv,  which 
appears  to  be  coupled,  in  construction,  with  fMteov.   Now.  on  the 


err.  XXVII.  S.  MATTHEW.  169 

supposition  that  it  was  so  construed,  as  eSaKxv  could  be  no  other 
than  the  third  person   plural,  £A«f«v  must  be  so  too.     In  one  of 
the  copies,  called  Evangelistaries  (which  are  MSS.   of  the  Gos- 
pels,  divided  according  to  the  manner  of  reading  them  in  some 
church  or  churches),  it  is  ^^kx,  in  the  first  person  singular.  The 
Sy.  interpreter  seems  also  to  have  read  e^uxu,  in  the  copy  or 
copies  used  by  him.     But  this  is  too  slight  an  authority,  in  my 
opinion,  for  deserting  the  common  reading.   I,  therefore,  entire, 
ly  approve  the  ingenious  solution  that  has  been  given  by  Knatch- 
bull,  and  read  J^y^v  in  the  third  person  plural,  not  as  coupled 
by  the  conjunction  with  sA^fsv,   but  as  belonging  to  a  separate 
clause ;  in  which  case,  the  version  will  be  literally  as  follow  s  :  /. 
took  the  thirty  shekels  (the  price  of  him  that  zms  valued,  ichom 
they  valued)  from  the  sons  of  Israel  (and  they  gave  them  for 
the  potter's  field),  as  th  ■  Lord  appointed  me.     The  version, 
given  in  the  text,  is  the  same  in  meaning,  but  more  perspicuous. 
ly  expressed.     Here,  indeed,  the  words,  and  they,  supply  the 
place  of  the  relative  -aho,  a  very  common  Hebraism.  It  is  surely 
much  less  usual,  though  I  will  not  say  unexampled,  to  make,  as 
our  translators  do,  the  phrase  um  vtm  \TfctiX,  serve  as  a  nomina- 
tive to  the  verb  iTif^YjTxyro. 

11.  Thou  art  the  King  of  the  Jews  ?  "Zv  h  o  ^ccnxm  rm  l«- 
Uim-,  E.  T.  Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jeiss?  Vul.   Ar.   Er. 
€al.  Tu  es  rex  Judworum  ?  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
is  an  interrogation  ;  but  it  is  equally  certain,  that  the  form  of  the 
expression  is  such  as  admits  us  to  understand  it  either  as  an 
affirmation,  or  as  an  interrogation.     Now,  1  imagine,  it  is  this 
particularity,  in  the  form  of  the  question,  which  has  given  rise 
to  the  customary  affirmative  answer,   o-u  >ify«?,   wherein  the  an- 
swerer,  without  mistaking  the  other's  meaning,  expresses  his 
assent  to  the  words,  considered  in  the  simple  lorm,  as  an  asser- 
tion ;  and  this  assent  serves  equally  as  an  answer  to  the  question. 
But  this  would  not  be  a  natural  manner  of  answering,  if  the 
form  of  the  question  were  such  as  could   not  admit  being  inter, 
preted  otherwise  than  as  a  question,     in  that  case,  nothing  can, 
with  any  propriety,  be  said  to  have  been  advanced  by  the  asker. 
As  sometimes,  with  us,  a  question  is  put  derisively,  in  the  form 
of  an  assertion,  when  the  proposer  conceives,  as  seems  to  have 
happened  here,  some  absurdity  in  the  thing  ;   I  thought  it  best, 
after  the  example  of  so  many  Lat.   interpreters,  to  adopt  the 


170  NOTES  ON  en.  xxto. 

equivocal,  or  rather  the  oblique,  form  of  the  original  expression. 
The  ambiguity  is  not  real,  but  apparent.  The  accent  in  speak- 
ing, and  the  point  of  interrogation  in  writing,  do,  in  such  cases, 
sufficiently  mark  the  difference.  Dio.  has  also  adopted  this  me- 
thod, and  said,  Tu  set  il  re  de'  Judei?  All  the  other  modern 
versions  I  have  seen,  follow  Be.  Pise,  and  Cas.  who  put  the  ques- 
tion in  the  direct  form,  the  two  former  saying,  Tune  es the 

other,  Esnc  tu Leo  de  Juda  says,  Es  tu 

17,  18,  19,  20,  21,  The  reader  will  observe,  that  there  is,  in 
these  verses,  in  the  common  version,  some  appearance  both  of 
tautology  and  of  incoherency,  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  entirely 
removed,  by  including  the  18th  and  19th  in  a  parenthesis,  and 
understanding  the  21st  as  a  resumption,  after  this  interruption, 
of  what  had  been  mentioned  in  the  17th  verse.  Let  the  whole 
passage  in  the  original  be  carefully  examined,  and  compared  with 
the  common  version,  and  with  this. 

24.  Of  this  innocent  person,  m  hy-ocm  ruTn.  E.  T.  0/  this  just 
person.  Cas.  Hujus  innocentis.  L.  CI.  De  cet  innocent.  The 
forensic  sense  (as  I  may  call  it)  of  the  Heb.  word  pns  tsadik^ 
and  consequently  of  the  Gr.  $iKiit(^,  adopted  as  equivalent,  is  no 
more  than  innocent,  or  not  guilty,  of  the  crime  whereof  he  stands 
accused.  This  appears  from  many  places  of  the  O.  T.  which  re- 
late to  judicial  proceedings,  particularly  Deut.  xxv.  1.  and  Prov. 
xvii.  15.  where  it  is  contrasted  with  a  word  commonly  rendered 
wicked,  and  which,  in  its  forensic  meaning,  denotes  no  more  than 
guilttj  of  the  crime  charged.  Pilate  does  not  appear  to  have 
known  any  thing  of  our  Lord's  character,  and  therefore  could 
pronounce  nothing  positively.  But  he  could  not  fail  to  see,  that 
this  accusation  brought  before  him,  sprang  from  malice,  and  was 
unsupported  by  evidence. 

29.  Of  thorns,  e^  xKxvSav.  Bishop  Pearee  has  remarked,  in  a 
iiote  on  this  verse,  that  ecuuvB-uv  may  be  the  genitive  plural,  either 
of  ctKciv^et,  thorn,  or  of  xkccv66<;,  the  herb  called  bear's-foot,  a 
smooth  plant,  and  without  prickles.  But,  in  support  of  the  com- 
mon version,  let  it  be  observed,  first,  that  in  both  Mr.  and  J.  it 
is  called  re^etva?  «>c«v^<va5.  This  adjective,  both  in  sacred  use,  and 
in  classical,  plainly  denotes  spineus,  thorny  ;  that  it  ever  means 


CH.  xxvn.  S.  MATTHEW.  171 

made  of  beur's-foot,  I  have  seen  no  evidence.     Thus  in  the  Sep. 
(Is.  xxxiv.  13.)  in  the  common  editions,  the  phrase  uKccvdim  ^vXx, 
is  used  for  prickly  shrubs.     2dly,  That  the  word  cc>cccy6u,  thorn, 
both  in  the  right  case,  and  in  the  oblique  cases,  occurs  in  several 
places  of  the  N.  T.  and  of  the  Sep.  is  unquestionable.   But  that, 
in  either,  the  word  u,cciyd(^  is  found  (leaving  this,  and  the  paral- 
lei  passage  in  J.  about  which  the  doubt  is  raised,  out  of  the 
question)"  has  not  been  pretended.  3dly,  Not  one  of  the  ancient, 
or  of  the  Oriental,  versions,  or,  indeed,  of  any  versions  known 
to  me,  favours  this  hypothesis.     The  Itc.  and  Sy.  which  are  the 
oldest,  both  render  the  word  thorns.     The  silence  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers,  for  near  two  centuries,  if  this  can  be  properly  plead- 
ed, after  what  has  been  observed  of  the  ancient  Itc.  and  Sy.  in- 
terpreters, and  especially,  when  we  consider  how  few  of  the 
works  of  the  earliest  Fatliers  are  extant,  proves  nothing  at  all. 
That  Tertullian,  the  first  of  the  Lat.  Fathers,  mentions  the  crown 
as  being  of  thorns,  and  speaks  in  such  a  manner  as  clearly  shows 
that  he  had  never  heard  of  any  diflerent  opinion,  or  even  doubt, 
raised  upon  the  subject,  is  very  strong  evidence  for  the  common 
translation.     Add  to  this,  that  an  eminent  Gr.  Father,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  a  contemporary  of  Tertullian,  understood  the 
word  in  the  same  manner.  "  It  is  absurd,"  says  he  (Psd.  1.  2.  c. 
8.),  "  in  us,  who  hear  that  our  Lord  was  crowned  with  thorns, 
"  uKciv6xn,  to  insult  the  venerable  sufferer,  by  crowning  ourselves 
"  with  ilowers."     Several  passages  equally  apposite,  might  be 
ffiven  from  the  same  chapter,  but  not  one  word  that  betrays  a 
suspicion  that  the  term  might  be,  or  a  suggestion  that  it  ever  had 
been,  otherwise  interpreted.  There  is,  therefore,  here  the  highest 
probability,  opposed  to  mere  conjecture. 

34.  Vinegar,  o|®-.  Vul.  vinum.  With  this  agree  the  Cop. 
Arm.  Sax.  2d  Sy.  and  Eth.  versions.  The  Cam.  and  a  few  other 
MSS.  read  o<y«y. 

2  fVonmoood,  ;^^oA))5.  E.  T.  Gall.  The  word  }co>^»  is  used 
with  great  latitude  in  the  Sep.  The  Heb.  word  signifying  worm- 
wood^ is  twice  so  rendered,  Prov.  v.  4.  Lam.  iii.  15.  At  other 
times,  it  seems  to  denote  any  bitter  or  poisonous  infusion,  that 
tasted  like  gall.  To  give  such  a  beverage  to  criminals  before 
their  execution,  was  then  used,  in  order  to  make  them  insensible 
of  the  horrors  of  death. 


172  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXVII. 


35.  {Tims  verifying  the  •words  of  the  prophet^  "  They  shar^ 
"  ed  my  niantle  among  them,  and  cast  tots  for  my  vesture,"!  hx 
vXiipaBi^  To  pyi6a  utto  ra  Tpo^ijTa'  Aiift.s^i(rcivro  rx  if^xTitx,  fi.n  envrei?, 
xcit  (TTi  rev  liJLxrtcTfMv  jza,  eQaXov  K?iti^ov.  These  words  are  wanting 
in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  in  which  the  most  valuable  are 
included,  in  the  works  of  some  ancient  commentators,  in  several 
early  versions  and  editions.  Though  the  Vul.  in  the  common 
editions,  has  this  clause,  it  is  not  found  in  many  of  their  best 
MSS.  As  it  was  a  practice,  with  some  transcribers,  to  correct, 
and,  as  they  imagined,  improve,  one  Gospel  by  another,  it  is  ex- 
tremely probable,  that  this  clause  has  been,  at  first,  copied  out 
of  J.  to  whose  Gospel  it  properly  belongs.  For  this  reason  I 
have  marked  it,  as  of  doubtful  authority. 

40.  The  reproach  in  this  verse  is  introduced  in  the  Vul.  by  the 
interjection,  Vah  !  in  which  concur  the  Cop.  Sax.  and  2d  Sy. 
The  Cam.  and  another  MS.  read  Ovei. 

40.  43.  God''s  Son.  See  note  on  ch.  iv.  3.  and  on  v.  54.  of  this 
chapter. 

41.  And  the  Pharisees.  The  words  >^  0xpio-xim,  though  not 
in  the  common  edition,  are  found  in  a  very  great  number  of  MSS. 
some  of  which  are  of  principal  note.  They  are  in  the  Cam.  and 
some  of  the  oldest  editions.  With  these  agree  the  Ara.  and  both 
the  Sy.  versions.  Origen  and  The.  have  read  so.  They  are  ap- 
proved by  Wet.  and  other  moderns. 

42.  Cannot  he  save  himself?  iccvrov  a  ^mix,Ta.i  <ruTM  ;  E.  T. 
Himself  he  cannot  save.  The  words  may  be  understood,  either 
as  an  affirmation,  or  as  a  question.  I  think,  with  Bishop  Pearce, 
that  the  latter  way  is  better  suited  to  the  context,  as  well  as  more 
emphatical. 

45.  The  whole  land,  ttxtxv  tjjv  ynv.  The  word  yj?  is  equivocal, 
and  may  be  rendered  either  earth  or  land.  Some  have  thought, 
that  the  addition  of  ttxo-x.,  ought  to  determine  our  preference  in 
favour  of  the  most  extensive  signification  of  the  word  ;  but  fhis 
argument  is  not  conclusive.  No  two  expressions  can  b;;  more 
similar  than  sysvro  Mim^  stti  ■jrxa-oiv  T)jv  y»v,  L.  iv.  25-  and  Mt.'s 
expression  here,  eyfyera  s-Koroi  ivi  -Ttrntrrmv  njv  yjjv.  Without  some 
special  reason,  therefore,  nothing  could  be  more  capricious  than 


tif.  xxvu. 


S.  MATTHEW.  173 


to  render  the  former,  There  zsns  famine  throughout  all  the  landj 
and  the  latter,  There  icas  darkness  over  all  the  earth. 

46,  Eli,  cli,  lama  sabachfhani.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that 
these  are  not  the  very  words  of  the  Ileb.  original  of  the  psalm 
quoted  :  but  they  are  in  what  is  called  Syrochaldaic,  at  that  time 
the  latiffuage  of  the  country,  the  dUilect  which  our  Lord  seems 
always  to  have  used.  It  is  not  entirely  the  same  with  the  lan- 
o-uage  of  the  Sy.  version,  but  very  near  it.  The  only  difference, 
in  this  exclamation,  between  the  Psalm  and  the  Gospel,  is  that, 
in  the  latter,  we  have  sabachthaiii  where,  in  the  former,  we  have 
gharablhaui.  The  Sy.  interpreter  has  not,  as  all  other  interpre- 
ters, given  first  the  very  Avords  of  our  Lord  on  this  occasion,  and 
then  an  interpretation  of  them  in  the  language  he  was  writing  • 
but,  by  a  very  small  alteration  on  some  of  the  words,  he  has 
made  them  suit  the  dialect  of  his  version,  so  as  to  need  no  other 
interpretation.  In  Sy.  they  run  thus,  Eil,  eil,  lamana  sabach- 
thani^  Yet,  even  here,  one  would  suspect  a  different  reading; 
Eil  signifies  God,  not  my  God.  The  reader  will  perceive  that  the 
difference  in  sound  is  inconsiderable.  See  the  Preface  to  this 
Gospel,  §  19.  and  Mr.  xv.  34.  N. 

47.  Some  of  the  bystanders  said,  "  He  callcth  Elijah.''^  These 
must  have  been  some  of  the  strangers,  of  whom  there  was  always 
a  great  concourse  at  the  passover,  who  did  not  understand  the 
dialect  then  spoken  in  Jerusalem. 

50.  Resigjied  his  spirit,  pt<Pi}K£  t«  ■^Dsvy.x.  E.  T.  Yielded  up  tlig 
ghost.  This  is  exactly  agreeable  to  the  sense,  though  the  phrase 
is  somewhat  antiquated.  Dod.  Dismissed  his  spirit.  lie  thinks, 
after  Jerom,  that  there  was  something  miraculous  in  our  Lord's 
deatb,  and  supposes  it  to  have  been  the  immediate  effect  of  big 
own  volition.  Whether  this  was  the  case  or  not,  the  words 
here  used  give  no  support  to  the  hypothesis.  The  phrase  cci^ieven 
Ti)v  "v^v^jjv,  which  is  very  similar,  is  used  by  the  Seventy,  Gen. 
xxxv.  18.  speaking  of  Rachel's  death.  The  like  expressions  often 
occur  in  Josephus,  and  other  Gr.  writers.  Nay,  an  example  has 
been  produced  from  Euripides,  of  this  very  phrase,  «<?-/?«  xvenntse, 
for  exfiired.  Indeed  the  primitive  meaning  of  the  word  7nev/Mt 
is  breath,  from  Tntu  I  breathe.  In  this  sense  it  occurs  Gen.  vi. 
17.  15.  2  Sam.  xxii,  16.  Ps.  xviii.  15.  xxxiii.  6.  and  many  other 
places. 

VOL.    IT.  ^'2 


174  NOTES  ON  cH.  xxYH. 

51.    The  veil  of  the  temple.     Probably  the  inner  veil, -which, 
divided  the  holy  from  the  most  holy  place. 

54.  The  son  of  a  god,  ^ea  via.  E.  T.  The  Son  of  God.  Let 
it  be  observed,  that  the  phrase,  here,  is  neither  o  iitai  m  ,9^e«,  the 
son  of  God,  nor  uio?  tov  S-eov,  a  son  of  God ;  but  it  is  o/a?  ,9-£«t;, 
both  words  being  used  indefinitely,  a  son  of  a  God;  an  expres- 
sion perfectly  suitable  in  the  mouth  of  a  polytbeist,  like  the  Ro. 
man  centurion.  The  reason  of  my  using  the  definitive  article  be. 
fore  the  word  son,  is,  because  it  is  more  conformable  to  our 
idiom.  If  the  father  be  expressed  indefinitely,  though  the  defi- 
nite article  be  prefixed  to  son,  it  has  no  emphasis  in  Erig.  Thus, 
should  one  say,  of  a  person  enq'iired  about.  He  is  the  son  of  a 
merchant,  nobody  would  understand,  as  implied  in  this  answer, 
that  he  is  either  the  onhj  son,  or  the  eldest.  Yet  this  mode  of 
answering  is  more  common  than  to  say.  He  is  a  son  of  a  mer- 
chant. But  when  the  father  is  mentioned  by  his  proper  name, 
or  distinguished  by  his  office  from  every  other  person,  we  use 
the  indefinite  article  before  the  word  son,  when  we  mean  to  ex- 
press  no  more  than  the  relation.  Thus  :  He  is  a  son  of  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  or  of  Mr,  S/ich-a-one.  Likewise,  in  deducing  a  ge- 
nealogy, the  definite  article  is  frequently  used  before  son,  but 
without  any  meaning.  Thus,  we  may  say :  Judah  the  son  of 
Jacob,  the  son  of  Isaac,  the  son  of  Abraham.  The  usual  Fr.  idiom 
is,  in  this,  preferable,  which  is  now  also  adopted  in  Eng.  They 
use  no  article,  definite  or  indefinite,  in  such  cases,  but  say,  Juda 
fils  de  Jacob,  fils  d' Isaac,  Jils  d' Abraham.  So  much  for  ano. 
malies,  in  the  use  of  articles  that  obtain  amongst  ourselves.  Yet 
nothing  would  be  more  unjust  than  to  conclude,  from  this,  that 
our  articles  have  no  distinctive  import,  but  are  used  promiscu- 
ously and  capriciously.  Let  us  not,  then,  fall  into  the  like  fal- 
lacy, in  arguing  about  the  articles  of  other  languages,  because 
of  a  few  exceptions  which,  to  us,  may  appear  capricious.  I 
know  it  may  be  objected  to  what  is  advanced  above,  concerning 
the  Gr.  article,  that  in  this  ch.  v.  43.  the  words  .9-£«u  t)<®-  occur 
without  any  article,  where  the  term  5f«v  must  nevertheless  be  un- 
derstood definitely.  But,  when  a  phrase,  expressed  fully,  comes 
soon  to  be  repeated  ;  articles,  and  other  definitives,  such  as  pro- 
nouns and  epithets,  are,  for  brevity's  sake,  often  omitted.  In  v. 
43.  there  is  an  implied  reference  to  what  was  expressed  more 
fully,  M<s5  rov  3-eov,  V.  40.  ;  the  same  strain  of  scoffing  is  continu- 


CH.  xxvii.  S.  MATTHEW.  175 

ed  through  the  whole.  Instances  of  such  omissions,  in  the  like 
cases,  are  very  numerous.  I  admit,  also,  in  regard  to  substan- 
tives in  general,  that  the  article  is  sometimes  omitted,  when  the 
meaning  is  definite,  but  hardly  ever  added  when  it  is  indefinite. 
I  am  not  certain,  whether  y<^,  in  the  two  verses  now  referred  to, 
should  be  rendered  a  son,  or  the  son.  Plausible  reasons  may  be 
advanced  for  each.  1  have  avoided  the  decision,  by  rendering  it 
in  both  verses,  Gocf's  son,  which  may  mean  either.  This,  as  I 
signified  before,  is  the  method  I  choose  to  take,  incases  which  ap- 
pear doubtful.  But  if  the  words  in  connection  be  ever  sufficient 
to  remove  all  doubt,  they  are  sufficient  in  v.  54.  That  the  ex- 
pression in  question  came  from  one  who,  as  he  believed  a  plu- 
rality of  gods,  could  scarcely  have  spoken  otherwise  than  in- 
definitely, is  perfectly  decisive.  Let  it  be  observed,  further, 
that  the  same  indefinite  expression  is  used  in  the  parallel  place, 
Mr.  XV.  39.     See  ch.  iv.  3.  N.  ch.  xiv.  33.  N.  Mr.  i.  1.  N. 

56.  Mary  Magdalene,  Mxpix  v  MxySctXr^vij.  It  might  be  ren- 
dered, more  literally,  and  even  properly,  Maiy  the  Magdalene, 
or  Mary  of  Magdala,  in  the  same  way  as  Ijjry?  o  tia^x^viv'^  is 
Jesus  the  Nazarene,  or  Jetius  of  Nazareth.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  this  addition,  employed  for  distinguishing  her  from 
others  of  the  same  name,  is  formed  from  Magdala,  the  name  of 
a  city  mentioned  ch.  xv.  39.  probably  the  place  of  her  birth,  or 
at  least  of  her  residence.  The  appellation,  Magdalene,  stands 
BOW,  however,  so  much  on  the  footing  of  a  proper  name,  that 
any  the  smallest  change  would  look  like  an  affectation  of  accura- 
cy in  things  of  no  moment. 

61.  The  other  Mary,  v  xXM  Mu^icc.  Sc.  Another  Mary.  But 
this  last  version  is  agreeable,  neither  to  the  letter,  nor  to  the 
sense,  of  the  original.  I  should  not  have  taken  notice  of  it, 
were  it  not  to  show  how  grossly  the  import  of  the  articles  is 
sometimes  mistaken,  and  how  strangely  they  are  confounded. 
This  learned  writer,  in  his  notes,  after  mentioning  the  common 
version,  the  other  Alary,  adds,  "  This  might  be  proper,  if 
"  there  were  but  two  Maries,"  I  answer,  it  is  sulTicient  to  the 
present  purpose,  that  there  were  but  two  Maries,  whom  the 
Evangelist  had  mentioned  a  very  little  before,  to  wit,  at  v.  56. 
These  were  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the  inother  of  James 


176  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXTII. 


and  loses.  He  now  aa;ain  names  Mary  Magdalene,  adding,  and 
the  other  Mary.  Can  any  person,  who  reflects,  be  at  a  loss  to 
discover,  that  he  says  the  other.,  to  save  the  repetition  of  the  mo. 
ther  of  James  and  J  OSes  ^  In  order  to  evince  the  redundancy, 
not  to  say,  in?»ignificancy",  of  the  Gr.  articles,  this  author  produ- 
ces  two  other  examples,  which,  doubtless,  have  appeared  to  him 
the  most  convincing.  The  tirst  is,  Mt.  x.  23.  'era  ^tuKwrti 
If^sii  (V  ryi  ttoXh  rxvT}j^  (PevyeTe  «s  r^jv  jjAA^v,  which  I  have  rendered, 
When  they  persecute  you  in  one  city.,Jlee  to  another  ;  but  which 
is,  in  th<?  common  version,  fVhen  they  persecute  you  in  this  city  ^ 
flee  ye  into  another.  Now,  to  me,  this  passage,  so  far  from 
showing  the  Flvangelist's  negligence,  in  his  manner  of  using  the 
articles,  proves  his  accuracy.  If  he  had  expressed  the  first  clause 
indefinitely,  orotv  huy^-iv  y^t-/,;  jv  f^Lix  TraXa.,  and  added,  (piuytre  £/? 
Tijv  «aAj}»,  this  writer's  reasoning  would  Irave  been  just ;  nor  could 
there  have  been  a  clearer  evidence,  that  the  articles  were  some- 
times used  without  any  determinate  meaning.  But  as  the  first 
clause  was  expressed  definitely,  propriety  required  that  the  se- 
cond should  be  definite  also.  E/5  r^jv  «AA;>v,  therefore,  in  this 
place,  is  equivalent  to  «?  r^jv  £X£<v};v,  and  opposed  to  ev  r^  ts-oXu 
rctvTv).  Since  our  translators,  therefore,  rendered  the  first  clause, 
When  they  persecute  you  in  this  city.,  tliey  ought  to  have  ren- 
dered the  second,  flee  into  that,  or,  into  that  other  :  for  this  is 
6ne  of  those  instances  (and  there  are  several,  as  has  been  often 
remarked  by  grammarians)  wherein  the  article  has  the  force  of  a 
pronoun.  I  have  chosen,  in  this  translation,  to  express  the  w  hole 
indefinitely,  as  this  manner  suits  better  the  genius  of  our  tongue, 
and  is  equally  expressive  of  the  sense.  The  other  way,  in  a  lan- 
guage wherein  it  flows  naturally  and  easily,  does  not,  I  acknow- 
ledge, want  its  advantages  in  point  of  vivacity.  But  to  begin  in 
one  manner,  and  end  in  the  other,  oflfends  alike  against  propriety 
and  elegance.  The  ofher  example,  taken  from  J.  xviii.  15.  I 
should  admit,  without  a  moment's  hesitation,  to  be  clearly  in  fa- 
vour of  Dr,  Sc's  doctrine,  if  I  did  not  consider  it  as  an  errone. 
ous  reading.     See  note  on  that  verse. 

63.  fVithin  three  days,  f^eret  rpetg  i)f4,epxi;.      Ch.  ii    16.  ^  N. 

64.  Command  that  the  sepulchre  be  guarded.     This,  as  being 
a  servile  work,  it  might  be  thought,  they  would  not  ask  to  be 


en.  xXTir.  S.  MATTHEW.  17T 

done  on  the  Sabbath.  But  we  ought  to  reflect,  that  they  askwl 
this  of  Romans,  whom  they  did  not  consider  as  bound  by  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath.  Jews,  to  this  day,  do  not  scruple  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  work  done  by  Christians  on  the  Sabbath.  See 
the  noie  on  v.  65. 

65.  Ve  have  a  guard.  Some  have  thought  that  the  guard. 
here  meant,  was  the  Levites,  who  kept  watch  in  the  temple  (L. 
xxii.  52.  N.)  ;  others,  that  it  was  a  band  of  Roman  soldiers  who, 
during  the  great  festivals,  guarded  the  porches  of  the  outer  court, 
and  had  it  in  charge  to  quell  any  tumult  which  might  arise  (here, 
or  in  the  city.  Of  this  guard  extraordinary,  at  their  public  so- 
lemnities, mention  is  made  by  Josephus  (Antiq.  I,  viii.  c.  iv.) 
That  it  was  not  the  Levites,  the  ordinary  temple  watch,  who  are 
here  alluded  to,  appears  from  the  following  reasons:  Ist,  The 
service  of  that  watch  does  not  seem  to  have  extended  beyond  the 
walls  of  the  temple.  2dly,  If  their  assistance  had  been  judged 
necessary,  the  chief  priests  had  no  occasion  to  recur  to  Pilate 
for  obtaining  it,  as,  by  the  constitution,  they  who  served  in  the 
temple  were  under  the  sole  direction  of  the  priests.  3dly,  As 
the  day,  on  which  the  assault  seems  to  have  been  dreaded,  was 
the  Sabbath,  it  is  probable  that  they  would  choose  to  have  Ro- 
man soldiers,  whom  they  could  lawfully  employ,  and  who  would 
be  restrained  by  no  religious  scruple,  rather  than  Jews,  for  sup- 
pressing any  tumult  on  that  day.  4thly,  Had  the  guard  been 
Levites,  they  were  accountable  only  to  the  chief  priests ;  where- 
as, being  Romans,  they  needed  the  priests,  as  mediators  with  Pi- 
late, before  they  could  be  induced,  by  a  sum  of  money,  to  pro- 
pagate a  falsehood,  which  reflected  so  much  on  themselves  as 
military  men,  and  even  exposed  them  to  punishment.  Lastly, 
the  name  Kurahet^  here  given  them,  which  is  neither  Gr.  nor  Sy. 
but  a  La.  word,  shows  clearly  they  were  Romans.  It  may  be 
objected,  '  But,  in  that  case,  would  the  procurator  have  said, 
'  ye  have  a  guard,  thus  representing  the  Roman  soldiers  as  under 
'  their  authority  ?'  I  take  this  to  be  no  more  than  a  civil  way  of 
granting  their  request.  As,  in  modern  language,  we  should  say. 
'  The  guard  is  at  your  service/ 


178  NOTES  ON  CH.  xxvnr, 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

1.  Sabbath  being  over,  e-^i  c-a^f^ctruv.  E.  T.  In  the  end  of  the 
Sabbath.  This  could  be  spoken  only  of  Saturday  evening;  for 
the  Sabbath  ended  at  sun-set.  That  this  is  not  the  meaning  here 
is  manifest  from  what  follows,  which  shows  it  to  have  been  the 
dawn  on  Sunday.  C^^b  before  a  genitive  often  means  after.  Be- 
sides, in  the  Jewish  idiom,  the  evening  is  understood  to  include 
the  whole  night,  from  sunset  to  sunrise. 

2.  There  had  been  a  great  earthquake.,  ILc-i^fJt/^  eytvero  u-eyxg. 
Pearce  after  Markland  says,  '•'  rather  commotion,  i.  e.  in  the 
air."  Wa.  disturbance.  Though  it  is  acknowledged  that  c-bit- 
ft®-  signifies  not  only  earthquake,  but  sometimes  tempest,  whirl, 
wind  ; — the  first  is  the  common  acceptation,  from  which  we  ought 
not  to  depart,  unless  when  the  words  in  connection  require  it. 
This  is  certainly  not  the  case  here.  Markland  imagines  that  the 
"word  c-eiTS-iiTciv,  applied  to  the  guards,  v.  4.  was  intended  by  Mt. 
to  prevent  mens  mistaking  the  import  of  the  word  c£(cr^(^,  v.  2. 
If  this  was  the  Evangelist's  intention  in  using  that  verb,  he  has 
not  been  lucky  in  the  choice  of  an  expedient,  for  c-c-i"-f^,@-'  here, 
till  of  late,  appears  to  have  been  understood  by  all  interpreters 
for  earthquake. 

2  Froju  the  entrance,  uto  tm  ^v^ccc,.  These  words  are  wanting 
in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  There  is  nothing  correspond- 
ing to  them  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  versions. 

9.  When  they  zcere  gone,  ag  efs  sTro^evtvro.  E.  T.  And  as  they 
zcent.  Dod.  and  Wy.  Js  they  z^ere  going.  If,  in  Hellenistic 
use,  accuracy  were  observed  in  regard  tothe  verbs,  the  last  would 
be  the  only  proper  way  of  rendering  the  expression.  But  from 
the  very  different  nature  of  the  Oriental  tongues,  there  has  aris- 
en,  among  Jewish  writers,  an  indefinite  application  of  the  Gr. 
tenses  and  moods,  which  renders  them,  in  some  cases,  not  a  lit. 
tie  equivocal.  The  expression  employed.  Acts  xx.  18.  *5  ^£  t«- 
fiyevovTo  Trpig  ctvrov,  is  extremely  similar  to  that  under  review;  yet 
no  Eng.  interpreter  has  scrupled  to  rerider  it,  JVhen  they  zsere 
come  (not  coming)  to  him,  as  this  is  a  meaning  to  which  the 
words  connected  evidently  confine  it.  Now,  as  the  words  are 
susceptible  of  this  interpretation,  candour  seems  equally  to  re- 


CM.  XXVI  n.  S.  MATTHEW.  179 

quire  it,  when  it  is  essential  to  the  consistency  of  the  sacred  his- 
torians. 

^  This  whole  clause,  ag  oe  t-TroPivovTo  UTctyyuXm  raig  fAx6)ir»ig 
xvTn^  is  wanting  in  the  Sy.  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  Ara.  and  Sax.  ver- 
sions. It  is  wanting  also  in  the  Cam.  and  many  other  MSS. 
Chr.  appears  not  to  have  read  it.  ft  is  rejected  by  Mill  and  some 
other  modern  critics.  Beside  these,  one  or  two  MSS.  which  re- 
tain «5  ^£  e^rojffflVTa,  omit  U'TrxyyeiXai  Teti  j«.«6j)T«/?  oivra,  which  are 
also  the  concluding  words  of  the  former  sentence.  As  the  lattor 
clause,  when  retained,  makes  not  the  smallest  alteration  in  the 
sense,  I  thought  the  above  authorities  might  be  held  reason  suffi- 
cient for  passing  it. 

^  Rejoice,  x,icipiri.  E.  T.  All  hail.  The  term  hail^  in  salut- 
ing, rarely  occurs  now,  except  in  Scripture  and  poetry.  How- 
ever, as,  in  some  cases,  we  have  no  word  which  can  prop>.^rly 
supply  its  place,  as  it  is  very  well  understood,  and  by  Scriptural 
use,  as  well  as  antiquity,  rendered  respectable,  it  ought  not,  in 
a  translation  of  the  Gospels,  to  be  entirely  laid  aside  ;  at  the 
same  time,  it  must  be  owned,  that  when  the  salutation  stands 
alone,  as  in  this  passage,  or  is  not  accompanied  with  some  com- 
pellation  to  the  persons  saluted,  its  appearance  is  rather  awk- 
ward. Our  translators  have  been  so  sensible  of  this,  as  to  judge 
it  necessary  to  insert  the  word  all^  to  render  the  expression  ful- 
ler. But  even  with  this  addition  it  still  sounds  oddly,  and  has 
been  rarely  copied  by  later  translators,  some  of  whom  have  pre- 
ferred the  way  of  circumlocution.  /  salute  you.,  says  one.  Cold 
and  formal.  God  save  you,  says  another,  which  seems  to  imply 
some  impending  danger.  To  me,  the  literal  translation  of  the 
Gr.  word  appears,  in  point  of  propriety,  as  well  as  simplicity, 
preferable  to  any  of  these  methods. 

14.  If  this  come  to  the  procurator'' s  ears.,  emv  ukovt^vi  rovro  ivt 
ra  iiyi^ivoi.  Wo.  and  Wa.  If  this  come  to  a  hearing  before  the 
governour  ;  that  is,  to  a  judicial  trial.  That  this  is  the  mean- 
ing appears  to  me  highly  improbable.  In  such  a  public  inquiry, 
it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  the  chief  priests  and  elders  could 
interfere,  without  betraying  themselves  and  risking  every  thing. 
But  nothing  can  be  more  likely  than  their  promising  to  use  their 
secret  influence  with  the  procurator,  to  induce  him,  (in  case  he 
should  hear  the  report),  to  overlook  it,  and  thus  prevent  exami- 
nation altogether  J  a  promise  which,  doubtless,  they  have  faith- 


ISQ  I^OTES  ON  cH.  xxviir. 

fully  kept,  as  it  entirely  accorded  with  what  they  accounted  their 
interest.  Dr.  Symonds  discovers  a  vulgarity  in  the  phrase  of 
which  I  am  not  sensible.  If  sound,  according  to  the  modern  the- 
ory, be  produced  by  an  undulation  of  air  striking  the  auditory 
nerve,  we  may  say,  1  think,  without  a  figure,  that  a  rumour  has 
come  to  our  ears.  That  ingenious  writer  has  not  scrupled  to 
say,  (page  3.)  /f  zi-e  cast  our  eyes  upon  the  period.  Now  this 
expression  is,  in  my  judgment,  much  more  exceptionable  than 
the  other.  There  is  a  real  motion  from  the  sonorous  object  to 
the  ear  ;'  but  tjie  eyes  are  never  cast  upon  this  object.  I  may  as 
well  speak  of  casting  my  cars  upon  a  sounding  object,  to  de- 
note— I  listen  so  it. 

17.    Threzo  themselves  prostraie.^Tr^oc-ix.vr^'ruv.  Ch.  ii.2.    ^  N. 

19,  "^O.  Co7i7^ert  all  the  nations — teaching  them,  f^MBiirevo-ciTe 
Travrx  tx  e6r/i — ^i^xtkovth  xvrm.  E.  T.  Teach  all  nations — teaching 
them.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Cal.  Pise.  Doceie  omnes  gentes — 
docentes  eos.  Cas.  employs  the  same  verb,  though  in  a  different 
form;  instead  of  Ewn^e*  rfoce^e,  saying,  after  his  manner,  Va- 
dite  docfum — docentes  eos.  The  Sy.  has  preserved  the  distinc- 
tion very  properly.  There  are  manifestly  three  things  which 
our  Lord  here  distinctly  enjoins  his  Apostles  to  execute  with  re. 
gard  to  the  nations,  to  wtt,  f^xSvirBVHv,  (SuTrrt^eiv,  ^i^xo-ichv,  that  is, 
to  convert  them  to  the  faith,  to  initiate  the  converts  into  the 
church  by  baptism,  and  to  instruct  the  baptised  in  all  the  duties 
of  the  Christian  life.  Our  translators  have,  after  the  whole  cur- 
rent of  La.  interpreters,  confounded  the  first  and  the  last,  ren- 
dering both  words  by  the  same  Eng.  word  teach.  The  foreign 
translators  have  not  been  so  implicit  followei-s.  Dio  says,  Am- 
macstrate  tutte  le  genti — insegnando  loro.  G.  F.  Endoctrinez 
toutes  nations — Ics  enseignans.  L.  Cl.  Faites  des  discij)les par- 
mi  toutes  les  nations — apprenez  leur.  Beau,  with  whom  Si. 
agrees,  has  not  expressed,  with  the  same  distinctness,  the  two 
parts  of  the  charge ;  for  though  the  terms  he  employs  are  diffe- 
rent, they  are  nearly  synonymous,  Enseignez  toutes  les  nations 
— leur  apprenunt.  P.  R.  and  Sa.  though  they  translate  from  the 
Vul.  where  the  error  originated,  have  distinguished  them  better, 
Instruisez  tons  les  peuples — leur  apprenant.  The  like  variety 
is  to  be  found  in  our  late  Eng.  versions,  none  of  which  has  fol. 
lowed  here  the  common  translation.      An.  Hey.  and  Wor.  say, 


CH.  xxYiii.  S.  MATTHEW.  181 

Instruct  all  nations.  Dod.  Proselyte  all  nations.  Wy.  Make 
disciples  in  all  nations.  Wa.  Make  disciples  of  all  the  nations. 
Sc.  and  Wes.  Disciple  all  nations.  They  all  render  the  begin- 
ning of  the  20th  v.  Teaching  them.  The  first  of  these,  Instruct 
all  nations^  is  certainly  too  vague  and  indefinite.  If  to  instruct 
and  to  teach  be  not  here  entirely  synonymous,  their  significations 
are  so  nearly  coincident,  that  were  they,  in  these  two  verses,  to 
change  places,  it  would  not  make  a  sensible  difference  on  the 
meaning.  Wy.  in  saying  Make  disciples,  has  hit  exactly  the 
sense  of  /icK6}jT£v&>,  but  it  is  one  thing  to  make  disciples  in  all  na- 
tions, and  another  thing  to  make  all  nations  disciples.  Wa.  does 
better  in  this  respect.  Sc.  and  Wes.  intended  well,  but  there  is 
no  such  verb  as  to  disciple  in  the  language.  It  is  found,  indeed, 
in  Spencer,  who  affected  obsolete  words  ;  but  he  uses  it  in  a  very 
different  sense ;  for  with  him  it  is  to  punish,  or  to  treat  with  se- 
vere discipline.  The  version  which  Dod.  has  given  of  this  pas- 
sage appears  the  least  exceptionable.  But  the  verb  to  proselyte, 
though  sometimes  occurring,  is  so  far  from  being  in  common  use, 
and  has  so  much  the  appearance  of  a  learned  or  technical  term, 
that,  in  a  style  so  natural  and  familiar  as  that  of  the  Evangelists, 
we  ought  not,  without  necessity,  to  recur  to  it.  But  there  can 
be  no  necessity  here,  as  the  verb  to  co/^^Je/7,  applied  as  in  this 
passage,  has  precisely  the  same  meaning.  See  the  note  on  ch. 
xviii.  3. 

^  The  conclusion  of  this  state,  tsj?  a-vtreXHXi  m  uimog.  Ch.  xii. 
32.  N. 

3  The  amen,  with  which  this  Gospel  concludes,  is  wanting  in 
four  MSS.  and  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions. 


VOL.  IV.  <23 


NOTES 

CRITICAL    AND    EXPLANATORY. 


THE  GOSPEL  BY  MARK. 

For  tlie  title,  see  the  note  on  the  title  of  the  preceding  Gospel. 

CHAPTER  I. 

1.   The  beginning  of  the  Gospel.     Some  consider  a.!>x,f)  here 
as  the  nominative  to  the  verb  tymro^  v.  4.  and  include  the  quota- 
tions from  the  Prophets,  verses  2d  and  3d,  in  a  parenthesis.  But 
abstracting  from  the  awkwardness  of  so  long  a  suspension  of  the 
sense  in  the  very  first  sentence,  the  expression  ct^x^  m  evxyyeXm 
iyeuTo  lc»x.nm  fitx-Trri^m,  appears  nowise  agreeable  to  the  style  of 
the  sacred  writers  ;  nor  will  it  be  found  to  answer  better,  if  we 
invert  the  order,  and  say  with  Markland,  laxmi  ^cx,zrri^»^>  eyairo 
a,^yjri  ra  evxyy£?^iii'   whereas  eyevero    Iwstrvjj?  fixTrri^uv^   John   came 
baptising,  or  simply,  John  baptised,  is  quite  in  their  idiom.  See 
eh.  ix.  7.  L.  ix.  35.     The  first  verse,  therefore,  ought  to  be  un- 
derstood as  a  sentence  by  itself.  It  was  not  unusual  with  authors 
to  prefix  to  their  performance  a  short  sentence,  to  serve  both  as 
a  title  to  the  book,  and  to  signify  that  the  beginning  immediately 
follows.     See  Hos.  i.  1,  2.     In  this  manner  also  Herodotus  in- 
troduces his  history,  'Hpo^oTn  ' AXtKci^voio-s-tioi  iropiiii  oiTToSc-t^Ki  nh. 
This  usage,  probably,  gave  rise  to  the  custom  afterwards  adopt- 
ed by  transcribers,  of  putting,  at  the  head  of  their  transcript, 
incipit,  followed  by  the  name  of  the  book  or  subject,  and  sub- 
joining  at  the  foot,  explicit,  with  the  name  repeated,  as  a  testi- 
mony to  the  reader,  that  the  work  was  entire.     This  purpose  it 
was,  with  them,  the  better  fitted  for  answering,  as  the  whole 
book  was  commonly  written  on  one  large  and  continued  scroll, 
lience  called  a  volume,  and  not,  as  with  us,  on  a  number  ef  di«- 


184  NOTES  ON 


cu.  I. 


tinct  leaves.  So  far,  however,  the  custom  obtains  still,  that  we. 
always  prefix  a  short  title  on  the  page  where  we  begin,  and  sub- 
join The  eniU  on  the  page  where  the  work  is  concluded. 

^  Son  of  God,  o«y  ra  0£«.  As  brevity  is  often  studied  in  titles, 
the  article  before  via  is  probably,  on  that  account,  left  out.  Let 
it  be  noted,  in  general,  that  the  omission  of  the  article  in  Gr.  is 
not  like  the  insertion  of  the  indefinite  article  in  Eng.  a  positive 
expression  that  the  word  is  to  be  understood  indefinitely.  The 
phrase  ii'oi  m  Gea,  as  was  hinted  before  (Mt,  xxvii,  54.  N.),  ex- 
actly corresponds  to  the  Eng.  Son  of  God,  which  leaves  the  rea- 
der at  liberty  to  understand  son  definitely,  or  indefinitely,  as  he 
thinks  proper.  The  term  God^s  Son  answers  the  same  purpose ; 
but  though  well  adapted  to  the  familiarity  of  dialogue,  it  does 
not  always  suit  the  dignity  of  historical  narration.  Mt.  xiv. 
33.   N. 

2.  In  the  prophets,  ev  ro/5  7epo(priToti<i.  Such  is  the  common  read- 
ing. But  it  ought  not  to  be  dissembled,  that  six  MSS.  two  of 
them  of  considerable  note,  some  ancient  versions,  amongst  which 
are  the  Vul.  and  the  Sy.  and  several  ecclesiastical  writers  read, 
in  the  prophet  Isaiah.  As  the  common  reading,  however,  has  an 
immense  majority  of  copies  in  its  favour,  and  some  noted  trans- 
lations, such  as  the  Ara.  and  the  Eth.  as  it  is  more  conformable 
to  the  scope  of  the  place,  where  two  quotations  are  brought  from 
different  prophets,  and  the  nearest  is  not  from  Isaiah,  but  froni 
Malachi,  I  could  discover  no  good  reason  for  departing  from  the; 
received  reading. 

2  Angel.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  9,  &c. 

3.  In  the  wilderness,  ev  rvj  eptif^M.  It  is  called.  In  Mt.  iii.  1.  the 
wilderness  of  Judea,  which  is  mentioned  Jud.  i.  16.  and  in  the 
title  of  Ps.  Ixiii.  It  lay  east  from  Jerusalem,  along  the  Jordan, 
and  the  lake  Asphaltites,  also  called  the  Dead  Sea.  By  wilder, 
ness  in  Scripture,  it  is  plain  that  we  are  not  always  to  under- 
stand, what  is  commonly  denominated  so  with  us,  a  region  either 
uninhabitaJjle  or  uninhabited.  Often  no  more  was  denoted  by 
it  than  a  country  fitter  for  pasture  than  for  agriculture,  moun- 
tainous, woody,  and  but  thinly  inhabited.  Thus,  Jer.  xxiii.  10. 
E.  T.  The  pleasant  places  of  the  wilderness  are  dried  up.  Sep. 
E|>;f«v3^;j5-«tw  «/ vsjitjt  Tj}5  epiiyjn,     Houbigant.    Pasciia  deserti  aru- 


CH,  I.  S-  MARK.  185 

erunt     Literally — The  pastures  of  the  wilderness  are  parched. 
Lightfoot  has  well  observed,  that  these  t^^nfMi  did  not  want  their 
towns  and  villages.   What  is  called  (L.  i.  39.)  r^jv  op«vj;y,  the  hill, 
country^  where  Mary  visited  her  cousin  Elizabeth,  is  included 
(v.  80.)  in  r«<?  £§jjjtt«<?,  the  deserts^  where  the  baptist  continued 
from  his  birth,  till  he  made  himself  known  to  Israel.     In  the  si- 
militude of  the  lost  sheep;  what  is  in  Mt.  xviii.  12.   Will  he  not 
leave  the  ninety-nine  upon  the  mountains  ?  cti  tx  opn  is  in  L.  xv. 
4.  Doth  not  leave  the  ninety^nine  in  the  desert,  £»  rr,  e^v!^.  The 
man  who  had  the  legion  is  said  (Mr.  v.  6.)  to  reside  a  ron  opi^i, 
and  (L   viii.  19  )  to  have  been  driven  by  the  demon  e/5  to?  £f3j|K.»5. 
I  do  not  say,  however,  that  the  words  were  equivalent.     Every 
untilled  country  they  called  i^vi^i,  but  every  tp^j^s  they  did  not 
call  op£«v«.     The  principal  diilerence  between  the  epuf^g  and  the 
rest  of  Judea,  was  that  the  one  w  as  pasturage  and  the  other  ara- 
ble.     In  the  arable,    the  property  of  individuals  was  separated 
by  hedges,  or  some  other  fence ;  in  the  pasturage,  the  ground 
belonged  in  common  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  adjoining  city  or 
village,  and  so  needed  no  fences.     The  word  ip^oi  in  scripture, 
admits  a  threefold  application.     One  is,  to  what  is  with  us  call- 
ed loilderness^  ground  equally  unfit  for  tillage  and  pasture,  such 
as  the  deserts  of  Arabia.     When  used  in  this  sense,  it  is  general- 
ly for  distinction's  sake,  attended  with  some  epithet  or  descrip- 
tion, as  howling,  terrible^  or  zeherein  is  no  water:  it  is  some- 
times used  for  low  pasture-lands ;  sometimes  for  hilly.     In  this 
application,  it  oftenest  occurs  in  the  gospel,  where  it  appears  to 
be  nearly  of  the  same  import  with  our  word  highlands. 

4.  Publishing.  Diss.  VI.  P.  V.—-  Reformation.  lb.  P.  III. 

10.  The  Spir^it  descend  upon  him.,  to  7rv£Vfx.ci  x.ctroi.l^ct,iv6v  btt  av~ 
rey.  Vul.  Spiriimn  descendentc7n  et  manentem  in  ipso.  So  al- 
so the  Sax.  Agreeably  to  this,  we  find,  in  four  Gr.  MSS.  of  little 
account,  Kcti  y.wt  inserted,  which  is  all  the  authority  now  known. 

11.  J«  whom,  £v  a.  The  Cam.  and  several  other  MSS.  have  ev 
crai.     Vul.  inte.     So  also  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  Cop.  Arm. 

13.  Forty  days,  »j>£f«s  rcs-trxpccxa^xx.  The  Vul.  adds,  et  qua. 
draginta  noctibus.  Three  Gr.  MSS.  have  »«;  vv»r«?  re'7--ccPcx,Mvrot,. 
Conformable  to  which  are  also  the  Ara.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Eth.  ver- 
sions. 


186  NOTES  ON  CH.  I. 

14.  Good  tidings.     Diss.  V.  P.  II.— ^  Reign.     lb.  P.  I. 

15.  The  time  is  accomplished.,  on  TrsTrP^n^MTM  o  xc^.i^'^.  E.  T. 
The  time  is  fulfilled.  The  time  here  spoken  of  is  that  which, 
according  to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  was  to  intervene 
between  any  period  assigned  by  them,  and  the  appearance  of  the 
Messiah.  This  had  been  revealed  to  Daniel,  as  consisting  of 
what,  in  prophetic  language,  is  denominated  seventy  weeks,  that 
is  (every  week  being  seven  years)  four  hundred  and  ninety  years; 
reckoning  from  the  order  issued  to  rebuild  the  temple  of  Jeru- 
salem. However  much  the  Jews  misunderstood  many  of  the 
other  prophecies  relating  to  the  reign  of  this  extraordinary  per- 
sonage: what  concerned  both  the  time  and  the  place  of  his  first 
appearance,  seems  to  have  been  pretty  well  apprehended  by  the 
bulk  of  the  nation.  From  the  N.  T.  as  well  as  from  the  other 
accounts  of  that  period  still  extant,  it  is  evident  that  the  expec- 
tation of  this  great  deliverer  was  then  general  among  them.  It 
is  a  point  of  some  consequence  to  the  cause  of  Christianity,  that 
both  the  time  and  the  place  of  our  Lord's  birth  coincided  with 
the  interpretations  then  commonly  given  of  the  prophecies,  by 
the  Jews  themselves,  his  contemporaries. 

19.  Mending.,  Kctra^Til^ovrcci.  The  Gr.  word  KocToioTt^etv  not 
©nly  signifies  to  mend  or  refit.,  but  also  to prepare^to  make.  In- 
terpreters have  generally  preferred  here  the  first  signification. 
This  concurrence  itself,  where  the  choice  is  indifl'erent,  is  a  good 
ground  of  preference  to  later  interpreters.  But  I  do  not  think 
the  choice  in  this  passage  indifferent.  A  fishing  bark,  such  as 
Josephus  describes  those  on  this  lake  to  have  been  (lib.  ii.  ca. 
43.  De  bello),  though  an  improper  place  for  manufacturing  nets 
in,  might  be  commodious  enough  for  repairing  small  injuries  sus- 
tained in  using. 

24.  Art  thou  come  to  destroy  us?  Lightfoot  (Hor.  Hob.)  ob- 
serves,  that  the  Jews  had  a  tradition  that  the  Messiah  would  de- 
stroy Galilee,  and  disperse  the  Galileans.  Ho  thinks,  therefore, 
that  this  ought  to  be  considered  as  spoken  by  the  man,  who  was 
a  Galilean,  and  not  bvthe  demon,  as  it  is  commonly  understood. 

2  The  holy  One  of  God.     Diss.  VI.  P.  IV.  L.  iv.  34.  N. 

28.  Through  all  the  region  of  Galilee,  £/?  o/;)v  tj?*  ttsoi^m^ov  t)k 
TxXiX»ioi/;.     E.  T.  Throughout  all  the  region  round  about  Gali. 


OH.  I.  S.  MARK.  187 

Ice.     VuT.  In  omnem  regionem.  GctUlcece.     This  TCrsion  of  the 
old  La.  interpreter  entirely  expresses  the  sense,  and  is  every  way 
better  than  that  given  by  Be.  In  totam  regionem  circumjaccn- 
tem  Galilct'ce,  who  has  been  imitated  by  other  translators,  both 
in  La.  and  in  modern  languages,  often  through  a  silly  attempt  at 
expressing  the  etymology  of  the  Gr.  words.     Had  Galilee  been 
the  name  of  a  town,  Tnpix'^p^  must  no  doubt  have  meant  the  en. 
virons^  or  circumjacent  country.     But  as  Galilee  is  the  name  of 
a  considerable  extent  cf  country,  the  compound  Trepix^^®^  de- 
notes no  more  than  the  simple  z''?'>h  ^^i  '^  <here  be  a  difference, 
it  only  adds  a  suggestion  that  the  country  spoken  of  is  extensive. 
But  as  the  region  round  about  Galilee  must  be  different  from 
Galilee  itself,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  the  region  of  GaUlee^ 
the  translators  that  render  it  so,  totally  alter  the  sense.    The  use 
of  -Ti-i^ixupoi  in  the  Sep.  manifestly  supports  the  interpretation 
which,  after  the  Vul.  and  all  the  ancient  interpreters,  I  have  gi- 
ven.    'H  7repix,^poi  ApyoS  is,   in  our  bible,  the  region  of  Argob  ; 
s;  '7t-(pty^upo<;  T«  lo^Jojvy,   the  plain  of  Jordan.     Other  examples 
might  be  given,  if  it  were  necessary.  To  express  properly  in  Gr 
the  region  round  about  Galilee.,  mc  should  say,  ^  Tre^i^a^oi;,  not 
rtK  rci?^i>^cctxi,  but  5ref*  r-^v  ToiXiXMxv.,  the  repetition  of  the  preposi. 
tion  being  quite  agreeable  to  the  genius  of  the  tongue.     Thus, 
Apoc.  XV.   6.  Us^ts^axr/Aivot   Trepi  rx  r>;^>;.     There  is  no  occasion, 
therefore,  for  Dr.  Pearce's  correction,   "  rather  into  tlie  whole 
"  region  of  Galilee,  which  was  round  about,  i.  e.  about  Caper- 
"  naum ;"  a  comment  which  is,  besides,  liable  to  this  other  ob- 
jection, that,  if  the  lake  of  Gennesaret  was,  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed, the  boundary  of  Galilee  on  the  east,  it  would  not  be  true 
that  Capernaum,  which  was  situated  on  the  side  of  the  lake,  was 
surrounded  by  Galilee. 

38.  The  neighbouring  boroughs.,  t«5  e^efietai  za/iioTroXai.  The 
Cam.  eyyvi  TroXeig  x.m  sh  tch;  xuf^xi,  Vul.  proximos  vicos  et  civi- 
tates.  So  also  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  and  Ara.  The  reading  of  a  single 
MS.  can  have  no  weight  in  this  case.  And  the  versions  have  ve- 
ry little.  The  uncommonness  of  the  word  yMfMTt-aXui,  which  oc- 
curs not  in  the  Sept.  and  no  where  else  in  the  N.  T.  might  natu- 
rally lead  translators  to  resolve  it  into  x<y|<.«?  y.a.i  TroXeiq.  But,  as 
it  is  understood  to  denote  something  intermediate,  greater  than 
the  one  and  less  than  the  other,  the  sense  is  sufficiently  expressed 
by  the  Eng.  word  beroughs. 


188  NOTES  ON  ch.  ii. 

43.  Strictly  charging  him,  efx.^fni^v'^oiy.iveK;  avru.  Mt.  ix.  30.  ^  N. 

44.  To  the  priest,  ra  is^ei.  Yu\.  Principi  sacerdofiwi.  Two 
ordinary  Gr.  MSS.  have  r«  apx^pei.  The  Sax.  also  follows  the 
Vul.  This  is  all  the  collateral  evidence  which  has  been  produc- 
ed for  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  Wet.  adds  the  Go.  version.  But 
if  I  can  trust  to  the  Go.  and  Anglo-Saxon  versions,  published  by 
Junius  and  Mareschal,  Amsterdam  1684,  the  Go.  is  here  entire- 
ly agreeable  to  the  common  Gr.  Indeed  there  is  every  kind  of 
evidence,  external  and  internal,  against  this  reading  of  the  Vul. 
The  power  of  judging  in  all  such  cases  belonged  by  law  equally 
fo  every  priest.  The  addition  of  the  article  t<s>,  in  this  passage, 
appears  to  have  arisen  from  this  circumstance,  that,  during  the 
attendance  of  every  course,  each  priest  of  the  course  had  his  spe- 
cial business  assigned  him  by  lot.  One,  in  particular,  would 
have  it  in  charge  to  inspect  the  leprous  and  unclean,  and  to  give 
orders  with  regard  to  their  cleansing.  For  this  reason  it  is  said 
ike  priest,  not  a  priest ;  but  we  have  reason  to  think  that,  ex- 
cept in  extraordinary  cases,  the  high  priest  would  not  be  called 
upon  to  decide  in  a  matter  which  the  law  had  put  in  the  power  of 
the  meanest  of  the  order.  The  Sy.  uses  the  plural  number,  to  the 
priests. 

CHAPTER  II. 

2.   The  word  of  God,  rov  Myev.     L.  i.  2.  N. 

7.  Blasphemies.     Diss.  X.  P.  II.  §  14. 

8.  Jesus  knowing  in  himself,  eTriyvm  o  Isjc-ss  ru  Trvevuoin  ocvra. 
E.  T.  When  J esus  perceived  in  his  Spirit.  There  is  something 
particular  in  the  expression  of  the  Evangelist.  At  first,  it  would 
appear  applicable  only  to  the  perception  a  man  has  of  Avhat  pas- 
ses within  his  own  mind,  when  the  object  of  his  thought  is  his 
own  faculties  and  their  operations.  This  species  of  knowledge 
we  commonly  distinguish  by  the  name  consciousness.  But  this 
is  far  from  suiting  the  application  of  the  phrase  here,  where  the 
thing  perceived  was  what  passed  in  the  minds  of  others.  To  me 
it  appears  manifest,  that  the  intention  of  the  sacred  writer  was 
to  signify  that  our  Lord,  in  this  case,  did  not,  as  others,  derive 
his  knowledge  from  the  ordinary  and  outward  methods  of  discc 


OH.  II.  S.  MARK.  189 

very,  which  are  open  to  all  men,  but  from  peculiar  powers  he 
possessed,  independently  of  every  thing  external.  I  have,  there- 
fore, preferred  to  every  other,  the  simple  expression  knozcing  in 
himself  i  both  because  perceiving  in,  or  %,  his  Spirit^  has  some 
ambiguity  in  it,  and  because  the  phrases  v  •^vx.n  oivth  and  to  ttvev. 
f^n  dvra  often,  in  the  Jewish  idiom,  denote  himself.  May  it  not 
be  reasonably  concluded,  that  the  information  as  to  the  source 
of  this  knowledge  in  Jesus,  is  here  given,  by  the  sacred  writer, 
to  teach  ail  Christians,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  that  they  are  not 
to  think  themselves  warranted,  by  the  example  of  their  Lord,  to 
pronounce  on  what  passes  within  the  hearts  of  others,  inasmuch 
as  this  is  a  branch  of  knowledge  which  was  peculiar  to  the  Son 
of  God,  whose  special  prerogative  it  was,  not  to  need  that  any 
should  testify  concerning  man  unto  him,  as  of  himself  he  knew 
what  was  in  man.     J.  ii.  25. 

15.  Placed  themselves  at  table.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  HI.  §  3—7. 

17.  VTo  reformalio?il,  «5  ft£r«vo<£«v.  This  clause  is  wanting 
here  in  a  greater  number  of  MSS.  and  ancient  versions  than  in  Mt. 
ix.  13.  (See  note  3d  on  that  verse.)  It  is  rejected  by  Gro.  Mill, 
and  Ben.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it  has  originally,  by  some 
copyist  who  has  thought  the  expression  defective  without  it,  been 
borrowed  from  L.  v.  32.  about  which  there  is  no  diversity  of 
reading.  But  though  there  may  be  some  ground  to  doubt  of  its 
authenticity  in  this  place,  and  in  that  above  quoted  from  Mt.  yet, 
as  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  its  appositeness,  I  thought  it  better 
to  retain  it  in  both  places,  and  distinguish  it  as  of  doubtful  au- 
thority. 

18.  Those  of  the  Pharisees,  oi  rm  <biptTscim.  In  a  considera- 
ble number  of  MSS.  (some  very  valuable)  we  read  it  ^xpiTxiot. 
The  Vul.  has  Pharisai,  not  disciimli  Pharisa^oriim.  This  is 
also  the  reading  of  the  Cop.  Go.  Sax.  and  second  Sy.  versions. 
But  they  are  not  all  a  sufficient  counterpoise  to  the  evidence  we 
have  for  the  common  reading. 

19.  The  bridemen,  it  liot  m  wi^m"^.  E.  T,  The  children  of 
the  bride-chamber.  It  is  evident  that  the  Gr.  phrase  inoi  tu  »j/|M.- 
pum  denotes  no  more  than  the  Eng.  word  bridemen  does,  name, 
ly  the  young  men  who,  at  a  marriage,  are  attendants  on  the  bride 

VOL.  IV.  24 


190  NOTES  ON  6H.  i;. 

and  bridegroom ;  whereas,  the  phrase  in  Eng.  the  children  of  the 
bride-rhamber^  suggests  a  very  different  idea, 

^  Do  they  fast  ?  uri  ^vyxvrxi  vtirevHv ;  E.  T,  Can  they  fast?  In 
a  subject  such  as  this,  relating  to  the  ordinary  manners  or  cus. 
toms  which  obtain  in  a  country,  it  is  usual  to  speak  of  any  thing, 
which  is  never  done,  as  of  what  cannot  be  done  ;  because  it  can- 
not, with  propriety,  or  without  the  ridicule  of  singularity,  be 
done.  M-^  (Jt/v!»vT*/  v^jrsfHv  is  therefore  synonymous  with  fMi  vjjs-ev. 
»!■; ;  Do  they  fast?  x\nd  »  owxvrxi  vti^-iveiv,  with  a  v»js-£fyr<,  They 
do  not  fast.  As  the  simple  manner  suits  better  the  idiom  of  our 
tongue,  I  have  preferred  it. 

20.  Thry  zoitlfast,  r^rsv^a^iv .  E.  T.  Shall  they  fast.  The 
expression  here  used  does  not  convey  a  command  from  our  Lord 
to  his  disciples,  but  is  merely  a  declaration  made  by  him  occa- 
sionally to  others,  of  what  would  in  fact  happen,  or  what  a  sense 
of  propriety,  on  a  change  of  circumstances,  would  induce  his 
disciples,  of  themselves,  to  do.  The  import  is  therefore  better 
expressed  by  ziill  than  by  shall.  At  the  time  when  the  common 
traiislation  was  made,  the  use  of  these  auxiliary  verbs  did  not 
entirely  coincide  with  the  present  use.  In  the  solemn  style,  and 
especially  in  all  prophecies  and  predictions,  shall  was  constant- 
ly used  where  every  body,  now  speaking  in  prose,  would  say 
will.  As  that  manner  is  (except  in  Scotland)  become  obsolete; 
and  as,  on  many  occasions,  the  modern  use  serves  better  the  pur- 
pose of  perspicuity,  distinguishing  mere  declarations  from  com- 
mands, promises,  and  threats ;  I  judged  it  better,  in  all  such  ca- 
ses, to  employ  these  terms  according  to  the  idiom  which  prevails 
at  present. 

24.  Which,  on  the  Sabbath.,  it  is  unlawful  to  do.  Mt.  xii.  2.  N. 

2&.  Abiathar  the  high  pi^iest.  From  the  passage  in  the  his- 
tory referred  to,  it  appears  that  Ahimelech,  the  father  of  Abia- 
thar, was  then  the  high  priest. 

2  The  tabernacle — the  loaves  of  the  presence.    Mt.  xii.  4.  N. 

28.  Therefore  the  Son  of  Man,  are  o  uia<;  m  ctvipuvn.  This  is^ 
introduced  as  a  consequence  from  what  had  been  advanced,  v. 
27.  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath. 
Hence  one  would  conclude  that,  the  Son  of  Man,  in  this  verse^ 


CH.  III.  S.  MARK.  191 

must  be  equivalent  to  man^  in  the  preceding  ;  otherwise  a  term 
is  introduced  into  the  conclusion,  which  was  not  in  the  premises. 


CHAPTER  III. 

4.  To  do  good--  or  to  do  evil ;  to  save,  or  to  kill — xyaSoTroit}- 
e-«<,  7}  KXMToinTxi'  ^vy^ijv  tutxi,  j}  dTroKTetvcci.  In  the  style  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  mere  negation  of  any  thing  is  often  expressed  by  the 
affirmation  of  the  contrary.  Thus,  L.  xiv.  26.  not  to  love,  or 
even  to  love  less,  is  called  to  hate ;  Mt.  xi.  25.  not  to  reveal  is 
to  hide ;  and  here,  not  to  do  good,  when  we  can,  is  to  do  evil ; 
not  to  save  is  to  kill.  Without  observing  this  particularity  in 
the  Oriental  idiom  (of  which  many  more  examples  might  be 
brought),  we  should  be  at  a  loss  to  discover  the  pertinency  of  our 
Lord's  argument;  as  the  question  about  preference  here  was 
solely  between  doing  and  not  doing.  But  from  this,  and  many 
other  passages,  it  may  be  justly  deduced,  as  a  standing  principle 
of  the  Christian  ethics,  that  not  to  do  the  good  which  we  have 
the  opportunity  and  power  to  do,  is,  in  a  certain  degree,  the 
same  as  to  do  the  contrary  evil;  and  not  to  prevent  mischief, 
v/hen  we  can,  the  same  as  to  commit  it. 

5.  For  the  blindness  of  their  minds,  stti  rtj  Tru^wc-ti  tt^i;  xxphsu; 
avrm.     Diss.  IV.  §  22,  23,  24. 

12.  He  strictlij  charged  them,  TraAA*  sTrenu-x  uvran;.  Ch.  ix. 
25.  N. 

14.  That  he  might  comtnission  them  to  proclaim  the  reign^ 
h»  xTors^^v  ocvTHi;  x.ijpvi7-T£ty,     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2. 

21.  His  kinsmen  hearing  this,  it:ent  out,  u.y.H'rv.tric,  ii  Trap''  ctv- 
Tn  i^tiXSov.  .Sir  Norton  Knatchbull,  a  learned  man,  but  a  hardy 
critic,  explains  these  words  as  if  they  were  arranged  and  point- 
ed thus,  'Ot  uicHe-oivTii,  TFccp'  ccvTU  i^ijXSsv,  "  Qui  audiverunt,  sive 
"  audientes  quod  turba  ita  fureret,  ab  eo  exiverunt,"  Theij  zdho 
heard  isent  out  from  him.  He  does  not  plead  any  diversity  of 
reading,  but  that  such  transpositions  of  the  article  are  often  io 
be  met  with.  "  AKac-MTi^  at  dicitur  frequenti  trajectione  pro  hi 
««ove-«vT£«."  But  it  would  have  been  more  satisfactory  to  pro- 
duce examples.  For  my  part,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  with  Ra- 
phelius,  that  this  transposition  is  very  harsh,  and  but  ill-suited 
to  the  idiom  of  the  language 


192  NOTES  ON  ch.  hi, 

2  'Oi  Trx^'  XVT6V.  That  this  is  a  common  phrase  for  denoting,- 
suz,  propinqui,  cognati,  his  kinsmen,  his  friends,  is  well  known. 
I  have  preferred  the  word  kinsmen,  as  the  circumstances  of  the 
story  evince,  that  it  is  not  his  disciples  Mho  are  meant,  but  who 
would  most  readily  be  understood  by  the  appellation  friends. 
Bishop  Pearce  is  of  a  different  opinion,  and  thinks  that  by  'at  Trxp' 
avTov  is  meant,  "  rather  those  who  were  with  him,  or  about  him, 
"  that  is,  some  of  the  Apostles  or  others  present."  Of  the  same 
opinion  is  Dr.  M' Night.  But  I  cannot  find  a  warrant  for  this 
interpretation.  Uu^tx.  often  signifies  ad,  upud,JHxia,  prope  ;  at, 
near,  with  ;  but  not  when  joined  with  the  genitive.  It  has,  in 
that  signification,  regularly  the  dative  of  persons,  and  the  accu- 
sative of  things.      Thus,  Phavorinus,  Uufa.  sr^s^ec-i?,  on  TrP^c-tonfTx 

He  subjoins  only  three  exceptions  that  have  occurred  to  him,  in 
all  which  the  preposition  has  the  accusative  of  the  person,  instead 
of  the  dative,  but  not  a  single  example  wherein  it  is  construed 
with  the  genitive.  The  use  of  the  preposition,  in  the  N.  T.  in 
this  signification,  which  is  very  frequent,  I  have  found,  except  in 
one  instance,  where  the  dative  of  the  thing,  and  not  the  accusa- 
tive, is  used,  entirely  conformable  to  the  remark  of  the  lexico- 
grapher. The  instance  is  in  J.  xix.  25.  Ei?-iticeia-xv  Se  Trccpa  tm  rctv. 
pu.  But  in  no  instance  have  I  found  it  with  a  genitive,  unless 
when  the  meaning  is  different ;  when  it  has  either  no  relation  to 
place,  as  appears  to  be  the  case  here,  or  when  it  corresponds  to 
the  La.  a,  ah,  and  to  the  Kng.  from.  If  the  article  did  not  form 
an  insuperable  objection  to  the  disposition  of  the  words  propos- 
ed by  Knatchbull,  his  way  of  rendering  Trctp  ctvrov  e'^y,x9av,  zccnt 
out  from  him,  would  be  unexceptionable.  Another  insuperable 
objection  against  both  the  above  hypotheses  (for  both  imply  that 
it  was  some  of  the  disciples,  or  at  least  some  of  those  who  were 
with  Jesus  in  the  house,  that  went  out),  is  that,  by  the  Evange- 
list's account,  they  who  went  out  were  persons  who  had  been 
informed  of  his  situation  by  others.  AxovcroivTig  ot  Trap  avrov.  Now, 
what  writer  of  common  sense  would  sjieak  of  men's  hearing  of  a 
distress  which  they  had  seen  and  felt,  and  in  which  they  had  been 
partakers?  For  it  is  said,  not  of  him  alone,  but  of  him  and  his 
disciples,  that  they  were  so  crowded,  that  they  could  not  so  much 
as  eat.     Nor  can  the  participle  aKova-xvni,  in  a  consistency  with 


CH.  HI. 


S.  MARK.  193 


the  ordinary  rules  of  construction,  refer  to  any  thing  but  the  dis- 
tress mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse. 

'  To  laij  hold  on  him,  K^xTiiTut  xvrav.     All  the  above  mention- 
ed critics  agree  in  thinking  that  the  mvrov  refers  not  to  I^jrss,  but 
to  o%A(95,  in  the  tsventieth  verse.      L.   CI.  also,  has  adopted  this 
opinion.    ^Ha  renders  the  words  Kpy.rt!Taii  «yray,  pour  la  reteni)\ 
referring  to  la  multitude,  in  the  foregoing  verse.    As  to  the  just- 
ness of  this  version,  far  from  being  dogmatical,  he  says,  modest- 
ly enough,  in  his  notes,  hcs  mots  Kpcir-^j-:it  avrov  sont  equivoques^ 
et  peuvcnt  etre  egalemcnt  rapporicz  an  mot  o^As;  qui  precede,  et 
d  Jesus  Christ.     Si  I'' on.  suit  cettc  construction,  t  Evangelistc 
voudra  dire  $)C.  mais  si  on  rapporte  ces  fiarolcs  a  Jesus  Christy 
il  leur  faudra  dunner  uii  sens  conforme — lie  seems  to  put  both 
ways  of  rendering  the    words  on  a  foot  of  equality.     Bishop 
Pearce  is  more  positive,  and  says,  in  his  note  on  this  passage, 
our  Eng,  translation  must  certainly  be  a  mistake.     Why  ?   Be- 
cause Jesus  was  in  a  house,  and  therefore  they  who   wanted  to 
lay  hold  on  him,  could  not  go  out  for  that  purpose.    True,  they 
could  not  go  out  of  that  house  ;  but  if  they  who  heard  of  his  dis- 
tress were  in  another  house  (and  the  very  expression  employed 
by  the  Evangelist,  shows  that  they  were  not  witnesses  of  the  dis- 
tress), would  there  be  any  impropriety  in  saying.  The)/  zcent  out 
to  lay  hold  on  him  ?  I  admit,  with  L.  CI.  that  the  pronoun  omrov, 
may  refer  either  to  e;^jAo?,  or  to  Jesus,  the  subject  of  discourse. 
But  that  the  latter  is  the  antecedent  here,   is  the  more  probable 
of  the  two  suppositions,  for  this  reason :   the  same  pronoun  oc- 
curs before,  in  this  verse,  where  it  is  admitted,  by  every  body, 
to  refer  to  him,  and  not  to  the  multitude,  at  Tcxp  avm  e^f)XSiv  xpci- 
rrjTxi  xvra^.     The  interprefation,  therefore,  which  makes  it  refer 
to  him,  though  not  absolutely  necessary,  is   the  most  obvious, 
and  the  most  conformable  to  the  syntactic  order.      Further,  till 
of  late,  the  pronoun  here  has  been  invariably  understood  so  by 
interpreters.  Thus,  the  Vul.  Cum  audissent  sui,  exicrunt  tenere 
cum.      It  must  have   been  earn,  if  they  had  understood   it  of 
the  crowd,  turba,  mentioned  in  the  preceding  sentence.     AVith 
this  agree,   in  sense,  all  the  other  translations  I  know,  ancient 
or  modern.  Oriental  ar  European,  L.  Cl.'s  alone  excepted.    The 
ancient  commentators,  Gr.  and  La.  show  not  only  (hat  they  un- 
derstood the  expression  in  the  same  way,  but  that  they  never 
heard  of  any  other  interpretation.  Thougli,  in  matters  of  abstract 
reasoning,  I  am  far  from  paying  great  deference  to  names  and 


J  94  NOTES  ON  ch.  in. 

anthorlties,  their  judgment  is  often  justly  held  decisive  in  matters 
purely  grammatical. 

'*  He  is  beside  himself,  s^^m'  Vul.  In  furorem  versus  est  \t 
shocks  many  persons  to  think,  that  so  harsh,  so  indecent,  a  sen. 
tence  concerning  our  Lord,  should  have  been  pronounced  by  his 
relations.  Several  methods  have,  accordingly,  been  attempted, 
for  eluding  this  sentiment  entirely,  or  at  least  aflixing  another 
meaning  to  the  word  E|f5->j,  than  that  here  given,  though  the  most 
ancient  and  the  most  common.  By  the  explanation  Dr.  Pearce 
had  given  of  the  preceding  words  (which  I  have  assigned  my  rea. 
sons  for  rejecting),  he  has  avoided  the  difficulty  altogether;  what 
is  affirmed  being  understood,  by  him,  as  spoken  of  the  crowd, 
and  not  of  Jesus.  Bur  he  has  not  adverted,  that  to  give  the 
words  this  turn,  is  to  render  the  whole  passage  incoherent.  No- 
thing appears  plainer,  than  that  the  verdict  of  his  friends,  in  this 
verse,  is  the  occasion  of  introducing  the  verdict  of  the  Scribes  in 
that  immediately  following.  Observe  the  parallelism  (if  I  may 
be  allowed  the  term)  of  the  expressions  :  'o<  •^ap  avm  e^'t^x^ot  y.pct- 
•rijO-xi  avrov,  iXiyo^  yap  oti  e^B^'tj'  k,xi  ot  ypxitit-irm  a:  otrra  hpoToXviAMV 
x.ccTxSxvr£i;  £>i.syov  on  BseX^e^^aX  £%£<.  Were  the  Scribes  also  speak- 
ing of  the  crowd  ?  As  that  will  not  be  pretended  ;  to  suppose 
that  in  one  verse  the  crowd  is  spoken  of,  and  in  the  next  our 
liord,  though  the  expression  is  similar,  and  no  hint  given  of  the 
change  of  the  subject,  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  arbitrary  sup- 
position. Now,  that  the  sense  given  in  the  common  ver- 
sion, which  I  have  followed,  is  an  ordinary  meaning  of  the 
word,  is  not  denied.  Phavorinus  explains  it  by  f^ottvsrut,  and  in 
2  Cor.  V.  13.  it  is  contrasted  with  the  verb  5-«^^evf<v,  in  such  a 
manner  as  not  to  admit  another  interpretation.  Thus  :  Eire  yu^ 
s^£?->if^ev,  ^eu'  etre  c-u(Ppauvy.Bv,  u/xiv.  It  is  urged,  on  the  other  side, 
that  the  word  occurs  in  the  Sep.  in  a  ditferent  meaning.  Gen. 
xlv.  26.  i^eri)  Jj'  hicvotoe.  IxkuQ.  E.  T.  J  acob'' s  heart  fainted.  But 
passing  the  observation,  that  the  expression  is  not  entirely  the 
same,  I  should  admit  the  same  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Evange- 
list, if  it  were  mentioned  as  what  was  reported  to  his  friends, 
and  not  as  what  was  said  by  them.  When  they  say,  he  is  beside 
himself,  every  body  understands  it  as  a  conclusion  which  they 
infer,  on  the  sudden,  from  what  they  had  heard.  The  judgment 
is  rash  and  injurious,  but  not  unnatural  to  people  in  a  certain 


CH.  III.  S.  MARK.  195 

temper.  The  other  version,  he  has  fainted,  denoting  a  visible 
event,  could  not  naturally  come  from  those  who  knew  nothing 
of  what  had  happened,  but  by  information  from  others.  If  it 
had  been  said,  in  the  future  fxsTjs-fr:*/,  he  will  faint,  the  case  had 
been  different,  as  this  would  have  been  no  more  than  an  expres- 
sion of  their  fears.  L.  CI.  was  so  sensible  of  the  weight  of  the 
above  mentioned  objections,  that,  though  he  considered  the  pro- 
noun dvTov  as  relating  to  the  crowd,  he  could  not  understand  an 
e|£5-«,  which  he  renders,  qii-il  doit  tombe  en  defaillance,  as  either 
spoken  of  the  crowd,  or  as  spoken  by  the  friends  :  but,  in  order 
to  keep  clear  of  both  these  difficulties,  he  has,  after  Gro.  adopt- 
ed an  hypothesis  which,  if  possible,  is  still  more  exceptionable. 
He  supposes,  in  contradiction  to  all  appearances,  that  the  word 
(Atyov,  in  this  verse,  is  used  impersonally  or  indefinitely,  and  that 
the  same  word,  in  the  next  verse,  so  similarly  introduced,  is  used 
personally  or  definitely.  Accordingly,  he  translates  sXiyov  yxp, 
not  car  ils  disoient,  as  the  construction  of  the  words  requires, 
but  car  on  disoit,  thus  making  it  not  what  his  kinsmen  inferred, 
tut  what  was  reported  to  them.  If  this  had  actually  been  the 
case,  the  simple,  obvious,  and  proper,  expression  in  Gr.  would 
have  been  :  Atcovrutrii  ot  Trap  ccvrov  «r;  e^i?-rjKH,  i^r/Xiav  KpxT'>i'rxi 
tcvrov.  In  this  case,  also,  I  should  have  thought  it  not  improbable 
that  the  word  implied  no  more  than  those  writers  suppose,  name- 
ly, that  he  had  fainted.  Some  are  for  rendering  it,  he  wondered, 
or  zoas  amazed,  assigning  to  it  the  same  meaning  which  the  word 
has  ch.  ii.  12.  where  an  evident  subject  of  wonder  and  amaze- 
ment is  first  mentioned,  and  then  the  passion,  as  the  natural 
effect.  This  way  of  rendering  the  words  is  exposed  to  objections 
equally  strong,  and  more  obvious.  The  only  modern  Eng.  ver- 
sions, that  I  know,  which  follow  the  common  translation,  are 
Hey.  and  Wes.  Gro.  thinks  that  the  Sy.  and  Ara.  favour  his 
explanation  of  the  word  5|er»j.  But  Father  Si.  is  of  a  different 
opinion,  I  cannot  help  observing,  on  the  whole,  that  in  the  way 
the  verse  is  here  rendered,  no  signification  is  assigned  to  the 
words,  which  it  is  not  universally  allowed  they  frequently  bear ; 
no  force  is  put  upon  the  construction,  but  every  thing  interpret- 
ed in  the  manner  which  would  most  readily  occur  to  a  reader  of 
common  understanding,  who,  without  any  preconceived  opinion, 
entered  on  the  study.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  none  of  the 
other  interpretations  which  does  not  (as  has  been  shown)  offer 


196  NOTES  ON  cu.  iv. 

some  viotentj^  to  the  words,  or  to  the  syntax  ;  in  consequence  of 
which,  the  sense  extracted,  is  far  from  being  that  which  would 
most  readily  present  itself  to  an  unprejudiced  reader.  It  hardly 
admits  a  doubt,  that  the  only  thing  which  has  hindered  the  uni- 
versal concurrence  of  translators,  in  the  common  version,  is  the 
unfavourable  light  it  puts  our  Lord's  relations  in.  But  that 
their  disposition  was,  at  least,  not  always  favourable  to  his 
claims,  we  have  the  best  authority  for  asserting.  See  J.  vii.  5. 
with  the  context. 

I  shall  conclude  this  long  critique  on  the  whole  passage,  with 
taking  notice  of  a  ditFerent  reading  on  the  first  part  of  it.  The 
Cam.  (with  which  concur  two  versions,  the  Go.  and  the  Cop.) 
substitutes  on  vy-ovi-xv  Trepi  ccvrov  oi  ypxf^ixxreii  i^  ot  XoiTroi^  zc/ien  the 
Scribes  and  the  rest  heard  concerning  hini^  for  ocKova-oivrei;  J<  ttxb 
avrov.  Had  this  reading  been  sufficiently  supported  (which  is 
far  from  being  the  case),  I  should  have  gladly  adopted  it,  and 
saved  the  relations. 

27.   The  strong  onc''s  house.     L.  xi.  21,  N. 

29.   Eternal  punishment.     Ch.  xii.  40.  N. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

10.  Those  zn'ho  were  about  him.,  zaith  the  ticelve^  asked  him^ 
■/IfurTjO-civ  ocvrov  oi  Tre^t  civrov  o-vv  Toii  ^ahy,ci.  Vul.  Inter roguverunt 
eum  hi  qui  cum  eo  erant  duodecim.  With  this  agrees  the  Sax. 
In  conformity  to  the  import,  though  not  to  the  letter,  of  this 
reading,  four  Gr.  MSS.  of  which  the  Cam.  is  one,  instead  of  o; 
TTtpt  avrov  Q-m  roic,  ^at^iycx.,  read  oi  f^x6t}Txt  avrov.  This  is  all  the 
countenance  which  the  reading  adopted  by  the  Vul.  has  from 
antiquity. 

24.  To  you  zoho  are  attentive.,  via.iv  roii  xKHHriv.  E.  T.  Unto 
you  that  hear.  The  places  are  numberless,  wherein  the  Heb. 
yotr  shamang.,  and  the  Gr.  ockovhv,  signify  not  barely  to  hear.,  but 
to  be  attentive.,  to  show  regard  to  what  one  hears.  See,  amongst 
other  passages,  Mt.  xviii.  15,  16.  That  it  must  be  understood 
with  this  limitation  here,  is  evident  from  its  being  preceded  by  the 
warning,  jiXeTrere  ri  aKovere,  and  from  its  being  followed  by  the 
words  Oi  yap  av  e^ij — where  the  phrases,  to  have.,  and  not  to  have^ 
are,  on  all  sides,  allowed  to  mean,  in  the  first  instance,  to  make, 
and  not  to  make,  a  good  use  of  what  one  has ;  and,  in  the  second, 


cH,  T.  S.  MARK.  197 

barely  to  possess,  and  not  to  possess.  It  may  be  proper  to  add, 
that  in  some  noted  MSS.  the  words  to;?  UKaaTiv  are  wanting;  as 
well  as  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  and  Ara.  versions. 

25.  From  him  who  hath  not,  even  that  zchich  he  hath,  shall 
be  takeii.  See  the  preceding  N.  That  zchich  he  hath,  in  the 
last  clause,  is  what  he  is  possessed  of.  I  did  not  think  it  proper 
to  interpret  the  word  diiierently,  according  to  its  different  senses, 
because  there  is,  here,  an  intended  paronomasia.     Mt.  x.  39.  N. 

36.  Having  him  in  the  bark,  they  set  sail,  7rcipu>^cc/A.?tiivsTi* 
«6i/rew,  «5  sjK  o  7m  ^Aa'w.  E.  T.  They  took  him,  even  as  he  was, 
in  the  ship.  Vul.  Assamunt  eum  ita  ut  erat  in  navi.  The  word 
ita,  even,  has  not  any  thing  in  the  original  corresponding  to  it, 
and  does  not  serve  to  illustrate  the  sense.  With  the  Vul.  agree 
most  modern  versions.  L.  Cl.  indeed  says.  Us  le  prirent  dans 
leiir  barque,  but  has  overlooked  the  ai  y)t  entirely.  Raphelius 
seems  to  understand  the  passage  in  the  same  way  that  L.  Cl.  does, 
and  explains  u<;  tiv,  zcith  such  preparation  as  he  had,  putting  the 
comma  after  tiv,  and  not  after  xvtov.  With  Eisner,  I  approve  more 
the  common  interpretation.  Against  the  other  there  are  three 
principal  objections  :  1st.  The  words  are  not  «?  to  5rAo<ov,  but 
£v  T«  ttMiu.  2dly,  No  example  of  a)<i  -/jv,  in  their  acceptation,  has 
been  yet  produced.  To  give,  as  an  example,  coTTrep  \vii<rKivxo-(JLi- 
loi  7)1,  is  too  ridiculous  to  require  an  answer.  Nor  is  it  more  to 
the  purpose,  to  quote  phrases  so  different  as  a<;  ax^''  and  w?  and 
iTux,(*-  3dly,  It  does  not  suit  the  humble  manner  in  which  our 
Lord  travelled  at  all  time5.  He  never  affected  the  state  of  a 
great  man  ;  nor  do  we  ever  hear  of  servants,  horses,  or  waggons, 
attending  him  with  provisions.  Dr.  Pearce,  who  seems  to  favour 
that  way  of  rendering  the  w  ords,  was  sensible  of  this  incongrui- 
ty, and  therefore  explains  it,  tired  as  he  teas  ;  but  this  still  sup- 
poses such  an  ellipsis  in  the  expression  as  I  can  find  no  ex- 
ample of. 

39.   Commanded  the  zeind.     Ch.  ix.  25.  N. 

CHAPTER  V. 

1.  Gadarenes.  Fa^uptivuv.  Vul.  Gerasenorum.  Mt.  viii.  28.  N. 

3.   In  the  tombs,  it  toi^  /ttv;jjttMo<?.     In  a  very  great  number  of 
MSS.  amongst  which  are  all  the  oldest  and  the  best,  it  is  sv  tck; 
VOL.  IV.  25 


198.  NOTES  ON  ch.  t. 

ft.vtjft.oiTi.  The  Com.  and  Ben.  read  so.  This  is  one  of  those  di- 
versities concerning  which,  as  the  sense  is  not  aifected,  we  can 
co.iclude  nothing  from  translations.  I  agree  with  Mill  and 
Wet.  in  adopting  it,  and  have,  therefore,  though  of  little  conse- 
quence, rendered  it  tombs,  as  I  commonly  use  monument  in  trans- 
lating IMr,(A.tt6V. 

7.  1  conjure  thee,  o^x.t^a  vs.  E.  T.  J  adjure  thee.  It  was  ob- 
served, on  Mt.  xxvi.  63.  that  the  verbs  i^Ki^ut  and  s^o^kiI^siv,  when 
spoken  of  as  used  by  magistrates,  or  those  in  authority,  denote 
to  adjure;  that  is,  to  oblige  to  swear,  to  exact  an  oath;  but 
when  it  is  mentioned  as  used  by  others,  and  on  ordinary  occa- 
sions, it  is  belter  rendered  to  conjure,  or  to  obtest  solemnly. 

11.  The  mountain,  r»  0^7).  There  is  so  great  a  concurrence 
of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  early  editions.  Fathers,  and  ancient 
versions,  in  favour  of  ru  o^eh  in  the  singular,  that  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  question  its  authenticity.  The  ancient  translations 
which  corroborate  this  reading,  are  all  those  that  are  of  any  ac- 
count with  critics,  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Ara.  the  Go.  the 
Cop.  the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.     Gro.  Mill,  and  Wet.  receive  it. 

15.  Him  who  had  been  possessed  bi/  the  legion,  rev  ^aiiMii^a- 
injv«v — Toy  e<T)(;riKora.  Tav  X'-yemot,.  The  latter  clause  is  not  in  the 
Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  and  seems  not  to  have  been  read  by  the 
author  of  the  Vul.  who  says,  Ilium  qui  a  dcemonio  vexabatur. 
Neither  is  it  in  the  Sax. 

17.  Theij  entreated  him  to  leave  their  territories,  r.^^avro  Trcc^ct- 
x,ctXeiv  uvnv  xTr-xB-eiv  ocTra  rm  o^i'uv  ccvruv.  E.  T.  They  began  to  pray 
him  to  depart  out  of  their  coasts.  It  has  been  long  observed  by 
critics,  that  oi^^(,tA.M  in  scripture,  before  an  infinitive,  is  often  no 
more  than  an  expletive,  u^^oiaxh  Xiyeiv  for  Xeyu,  Sac  That  this  is 
sometimes  the  case,  cannot  be  doubted,  but  as,  in  my  judgment, 
it  does  not  hold  so  frequently,  as  some  imagine,  I  shall  make  a 
few  observations  for  ascertaining  the  cases  in  which  that  verb  is 
significant,  and  ought  to  be  translated.  The  1st  is,  when  an  ad- 
verb of  time  appears  to  refer  us  to  the  special  circumstance  ex- 
pressed by  x^^oiA-M.  Thus  Mt.  iv.  17.  Atto  Tore  tj^^xro  o  I^jtkj 
xn^vTo-eiv — From  that  time  Jesus  began  to  proclaim — Then  was 
the  first  example  he  gave  of  the  practice.  So  Mt.  xvi.  21.  The 
2<i  is,  when  the  scope  of  the  place  produces  the  same  effect,  with 


CH.  V. 


S.  MARK.  199 


an  adverb  of  time.  Thus  we  see  with  equal  evidence  that  v  ^f 
^'ut^ct  9}^^xTo  K?iimv.  L.  ix.  12.  must  be  translated,  the  day  began 
to  decline.  A^^oj^emv  S'e  rarm  yms-S-xt.  L.  xxi.  28.  When  these 
things  begin  to  be  ftdjilled.  'Oyr«?  o  av^^uTrot;  r,^\xTo  oiKtt^of^iiv,  i^ 
UK  ir^vrev  iKTiXcrxt.  L.  xiv.  30.  This  man  began  to  build,  but 
was  not  able  to  finish.  Those,  though  the  clearest,  are  not  the 
only  cases  wherein  c<.^xof4.u,i  is  not  redundant.  The  third  is,  when 
a  clause  is  subjoined  which  appears  to  have  some  reference  to  the 
particular  circumstance  expressed   by  et^^of-txt.     Thus  Mt.  xii. 

1,  2.  'O'  |t4*.Jj!T3«(  ct'jTH  Ti^^otvro  T.'Me;»  fci^vxi; — Oi  h  ^ot^ts-cuot  iSovtk; 
fj^av— The  known  captiousness  of  the  Pharispes,  and  their  for- 
wardness, on  every  occasion,  to  reproach  our  Lord,  give  ground 
to  think,  it  vvas  the  historian's  intention  .to  suggest,  that  the  dis- 
ciples were  but  begun  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn,  when  they  ob- 
truded their  censure,  and  that,  consequently,  began  to  pluck  is 
not  a  mere  pleonastn  for  pin-  k^d.  The  4th  and  only  other  case 
■which  occurs,  is  when  u^x"!^'^'  se'^ms  to  insinuate  that  what  was 
done  was  not  much,  that  it  was  of  short  continuance,  like  an 
action  only  begun.  An  example  of  this  we  have  in  Mt.  xi,  20, 
H^I^Ta  oveth^eiv  roui  %oXm — lie  began  to  reproach  the  cities — Mt. 
xxvi.  22.  Tj^^avTo  Xsyeiv  e>cct^oi  avrm  marks  more  strongly  the  ab- 
ruptness and  coincidence  of  the  cry,  than  fAsyev  e^totffl?  could  have 
done.  I  own,  however,  that  the  two  cases  last  mentioned  have 
not  equal  evidence  with  the  two  which  precede  them,  and  would 
therefore  condemn  no  interpreter  for  dropping  u^^oyMi  in  both. 
For  my  part,  I  choose  to  retain  it,  as  I  think  it  neither  quite  un- 
meaning, nor  even  unsuitable  to  modern  idioms.  Si.  in  Fr.  in 
these  cases,  sometimes  rentiers  u^^strS-xi  by  the  verb  se  mcttre^ 
which  seems  equivalent.  Thus  Ses  disciples  se  mirent  a  arracher 
— and  II  se  mit  a  reprocher — In  other  cases,  particularly  in  the 
text,  the  redundancy  of  cc^^ofMH  is  manifest. 

23.  /  pray  thee  come,  and  lay  thy  hands  upon  her,  hx  ex6xv 
£7ne»ii  01VT71  rxc,  x^^i'^'  V"b  Veni,  impone  manum  super  earn.  Per- 
haps the  La.  version  of  the  words  has  arisen  from  a  different 
reading  in  the  original.  The  Cam.  with  other  differences,  has 
t>M  in  the  imperative.  Perhaps  it  has  been  what  the  La.  trans- 
lator thought  a  proper  exp'ression  of  the  sense.  The  conjunction 
hx.  with  tlie  subjunctive  mood,  not  preceded  by  another  verb,  is 


200  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

justly  to  be  regarded  as  another  form  of  the  imperative.  The 
only  difference  between  it  and  an  ordinary  imperative  is,  that  it 
is  a  more  humble  expression,  serving  to  discriminate  an  entreaty 
from  a  command.  In  this  respect  it  corresponds  to  the  Heb.  par- 
ticle NJ  na^  which,  when  it  is  subjoined  to  the  imperative,  forms, 
in  effect,  a  different  mood  ;  for  wliat  two  things  can  differ  farther 
than  to  entreat  and  to  command?  Yet,  to  mark  the  difference  in 
most  languages,  can  be  effected  only  by  some  such  phrase  as,  / 
pray  thee  ;  which,  therefore,  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  words 
inserted  without  authority  from  the  original,  since  without  them 
the  full  import  of  the  original  is  not  expressed.  It  has,  ac- 
cordingly, been  supplied  in  some  such  way  in  most  versions. 
Be.  says,  Rogo  ;  Er.  Zu.  and  Cal.  Oro ;  Dio.  Deh  ;  G.  F.  Je 
te  prie ;  Beau.  Je  vous  prie.  The  same  may  be  affirmed,  not 
only  of  our  common  version,  but  of  the  generality  of  Eng. 
translations.  This  remark  will  supersede  the  correction  propos- 
ed by  Dr.  Pearce,  which,  though  not  implausible,  leans  too 
much  on  conjecture  to  be  adopted  here. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

2.  And  how  are  so  great  miracles,  ot<  xJ  ^wxi^ui  roixvrxt.  E.  T. 
that  even  such  mighty  zcorks.  The  conjunction  ort  is  wanting  in 
a  great  number  of  MSS.  including  many  of  chief  note,  and  in 
several  of  the  oldest  and  best  editions.  Wet.  and  other  writers 
reject  it.  Add  to  all  these,  that  the  sense  is  clearer  without  it. 

3.  JVith  us,  TT^oi  iniJ^^A-  Vul.  apad  nos.  To  the  same  pur- 
pose the  Sy.  &c.  The  Seventy  have  employed  ir^as  in  interpreting 
the  Heb.  etsel,  which  answers  to  the  La^  juxta,  apud.  2  Chr. 
xxviii.  15,  Is.  xix.  19.  Jer.  xli.  17.  In  the  same  way  it  is  em- 
ployed in  the  N.  T.  J.  i.  1.  o  Asyo^  y,v  Tr^cg  rav  B'sov.  The  word 
was  zcith  God.  Is  there  any  occasion  here  to  recur,  with  Mark- 
land,  to  classical  authors,  for  an  application  of  the  term  which 
must  be  acknowledged  to  be,  even  in  them,  very  uncommon  ? 

9.  To  be  shod  with  sandals,  and  not  to  put  on  tioo  coats.  The 
reading,  in  Gr.  here  followed,  is  AAA'  uTroSc^e/^svin  o-xv^ct^ix,  kxi  fj.y, 
tvSva-xa-S-xi  ^vo  ^iTmcK;.  Authorities  are  almost  equally  divided  be- 


CU.  Tl. 


S.  MARK.  201 


tween  et^Toia-^M  in  the  infinitive, and  evhTtia-^e  in  the  imperative; 
for  I  consider,  with  bishop  Pearce,  those  copies  which  read  ev^v- 
<rx(r9-e  as  favouring  the  former,  the  change  of  the  termination  «i 
into  s  being  a  common  blunder  of  transcribers.     Now,  though 
the  anthorities,  on  the  other  side,  were  more  numerous  than  they 
are,  the  sense  and  structure  of  the  discourse  are  more  than  suffi- 
cient to  turn  the  balance.     Mr.  had  hitherto  been  using  the  ob. 
lique,  not  the  direct,  style,  in  the  injunctions  which  he  reports 
as  given  by  our  Lord.     This  verse,  therefore,  is  most  naturally 
construed  with  Trxfuyyei^iv  uvroii  in  the  preceding  verse.  It  is  not 
usual  with  this  writer  to  pass,  abruptly,  from  the  style  of  narra- 
tion,  to  that  of  dialogue,  without  giving  notice  to  the  reader.    It  is 
the  more  improbable  here,  as  intimation  is  formally  given  in  the 
next  verse,  in  regard  to  what  follows  ;  xmi  eXsysv  uvroig.     For,  if 
this  notice  was  unnecessary,  when  he  first  adopted  the  change  of 
manner,  it  was  imseasonable  afterwards,  as  it  hurt  both  the  sim- 
plicity and  the  perspicuity  of  the  discourse.  I  cannot  help,  there- 
fore, in  this  instance,  differing  from  both  the  late  critical  editors 
Mill  and  Wet. 

11.  As  a  protestation  against  them,^  m  ua^rv^iov  ccvraii.  Ch. 
xiii.  9.  N 

2  Verily  I  saij  unto  yoii^  the  condition  of  Sodom  and  Gomor. 
rah  shall  be  more  tolerable  on  the  day  of  judgment,  than  the 
condition  of  that  city.  The  Gr.  answering  to  this,  Af^nv  >i£ya)  ui*.n, 
avixToTi^ov  ».  T.  A.  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  three  other  MSS,. 
The  Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  also,  have  nothing  that  corresponds  to  it. 

1 5.  It  is  a  Prophet,  like  those  of  ancient  times,  on  Tr^otptiTiif 
ef(v,  >;  ar«  hi  rm  fr^optirm.  E.  T.  That  it  is  a  Prophet,  or  as  one 
,  of  the  Prophets.  There  is,  however,  such  a  consent  of  MSS. 
several  of  them  of  the  first  note,  versions,  as  Vul.  Sy.  Ara.  Go. 
Cop.  Sax.  and  Eth.  with  editions,  Fathers,  critics,  for  rejecting 
the  conjunction  vi,  as  to  remove  all  doubt  concerning  it.  The 
sentence  is  also  more  perspicuous  without  it.  '0<  7r^o(pyircti,  used 
in  this  manner,  always  meant  the  ancient  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jere- 
miah— 

20.  Protected,  e-vurn^ei.  E.  T.  Observed.  On  the  margin  we 
read  kept,  or  saved  him,  to  wit,  from  the  effects  of  Herodias'  re- 
sentment. This  is  evidently  the  true  version.  The  Vul.  has  cus. 
todiebat ;  Ar.  in  the  same  sense,  conservabat ;  Er.  and  the  other 


202  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

La.  translators,  less  properly,  obserTubat.  That  the  import  of  the 
verb  is  to  preserve,  to  protect,  appears  not  only  from  the  con- 
nection in  this  place,  but  from  all  the  other  passages  in  the  N. 
T.  where  it  occurs.     Mt.  ix.  17.  L.  ii.  19.  v.  38. 

^  Did  many  things  recommended  by  him,  eay^HTXi  avra,  toXXci 
iTTout.  That  Herod  attended  with  pleasure  on  John's  teaching, 
we  are  told,  in  the  very  next  clause  of  the  sentence,  sj'iJsw?  oivm 
mae.  As  this  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  a  tautolog)',  the  for- 
mer xKHTdi;  xvTbi  must  be  regarded  only  as  explanatory  of  ttoAAsc 
cTToisi,  the  import  of  which  1  have  given  in  the  translation. 

27.  Dispatched  a  sentinel,  uTro^-eiXxi  a-TrstcaXctT&i^x.  E.  T.  Sent 
an  executioner.  The  word  executioner,  with  us,  means  one 
whose  office  it  is  to  execute  the  sentence  of  the  law  on  criminals. 
They  had  not  then  a  peculiar  officer  for  this  business.  The  lie- 
tors,  indeed,  were  employed  in  it  by  those  Roman  magistrates 
who  were  entitled  to  their  attendance.  Otlier  persons  in  autho- 
rity in  the  provinces,  commonly  entrusted  it  to  some  of  the  sol- 
diery. The  term  used  by  Mr.  is  a  La.  word,  and  properly  sig- 
nifies sentinel,  watch  or  scout. 

23.  Many,  who  sazo  them  depart,  gnd  knew  whither  they  zcere 
sailing,  ran  oat  of  all  the  cities,  got  thither  by  land  before  them, 
Eiaav  civrag  oVasyavraes  it  op^Mi,  x.xt  iTTsyvaiJ-xv  eiVTov  -yroXXoi,  y,xi  Tre^tj  xtto 
•jrATui  ray  TroXeav  trvve^^xfMV  ex.£i,  xxi  tt^oi^XSov  xvrni.  E.  T.  The  peo- 
ple sazo  them  dcpartifig,  and  many  knew  him,  and  ran  a-fooi 
thither  out  of  all  cities,  and  outwent  them.  There  are  two  va- 
rious readings  of  some  moment  on  this  passage.  The  first  is,  the 
omission  of  oi  ep/^Xoi,  the  second,  the  omission  of  etvTov.  The  au- 
thorities for  both  are  not  equal,  but  are,  all  things  considered, 
sufficient  ground  for  adopting  fhem.  As  to  the  first,  it  is  favour- 
ed by  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions, 
and  by  MSS.  editions,  fathers,  and  critics,  more  than  necessary  j 
as  to  the  second,  the  rejection  of  (he  pronoun  is  warranted  by 
the  Cam.  and  several  other  MSS.  as  well  as  by  the  Vul.  which 
renders  the  words  thus :  Viderunt  eos  abeuntes,  et  cognoverunt 
multi ;  et  pedestres  de  omnibus  civitatibus  concurrerunt  illuc, 
et  prwoencrunt  eos.  But  what  I  think  a  superior  warrant,  and 
a  kind  of  intrinsic  evidence,  that  the  words  in  question  are  in. 
truders,  is,  that  the  sense,  as  well  as  the  construction  (which 


S.  MARK.  203 

seemed  embarrassed  before),  is  cleared  by  their  removal.  It 
could  not,  probably,  be  ia  the  sight  of  the  multitude  that  our 
Lord  and  his  apostles  would  embark,  since  their  intention  was 
to  be  private,  though  many  might  discover  it,  who  would  inform 
others.  That  the  historian  should  say  that  many  knew  him,  now 
after  he  had  been  so  long  occupied  every  day  in  teaching  them, ' 
and  curing  their  sick,  and  had  been  constantly  attended  by  (he 
admiring  crowd,  is  exceedingly  improbable.  There  would  be, 
comparatively,  but  few,  if  any,  there  who  did  not  know  him. 
It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  when  the  ccvro^i  is  excluded,  there 
seems  to  be  some  defect,  as  it  is  not  expressly  said  what  they 
knew:  but  this  is  so  fully  supplied  by  the  following  words, 
which  acquaint  us  that  the  people  got  thither  before  them,  as  to 
put  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  what  he  meant  to  say  tiiey  knew,  was 
the  place  whither  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  intended  to  sail. 

2  By  land.     Mt.  xiv.  13.  N. 

3  And  came  together  to  him^  xxt  <rw»A5ov  ts-^'^  xvroy.  This 
clause  is  wanting  in  three  MSS.  and  in  the  Vul.  Sy.  Sax.  and  Cop. 
versions. 

36.  Buy  themselves  bread,  for  they  have  nothing  to  eat,  aya- 
^cCTucriv  Uvroii  afrs?'  ri  ya.^  cpuycoTw  a^  ezii<^t-  Vul.  emant  cibos 
quos  manducunt.  The  Cam.  alone  in  conformity  to  the  Vul.  «y«- 
l«(7«-(  r,  ipocyeiK  In  two  or  three  MSS.  of  little  account,  there 
are  on  this  clause,  some  other  inconsiderable  variations. 

40.  Squares,  tt^xt-im.  E.  T.  Ranks.  The  word  denotes  a 
small  plat,  such  as  a  ilower-bed  in  a  garden.  It  has  this  mean- 
ing in  Ecclus.  xxiv.  31.  1  do  not  find  it  in  the  Sep.  or  in  any 
other  part  of  the  N.  T.  These  beds  were  in  the  form  of  oblong 
squares.  Thus,  Hesychius  :  U^cctim  ki  £v  ts^?  zsjcto/^  m^'x.yuyoi  Xa,- 
jC^nott.  To  the  sume  purpose,  also,  Phavorinus.  The  word  is, 
therefore,  very  improperly,  rendered  either  ranks  or  roxs.  That 
the  whole  people  made  one  compact  body,  an  hundred  men  in 
front,  and  fifty  deep  (a  conceit  which  has  arisen  from  obse.  ving 
that  the  product  of  these  two  numbers  is  five  thousand),  appears 
totally  inconsistent  with  the  circumstances  mentioned  both  by 
Mr.  who  calls  them,  in  the  plural,  irvM.?FcTiix.  and  Tr^xtnai,  and  by 
L.  who  calls  them  kXifkh. 


204  ^  NOTES  ON  m.  vii. 

44.  Five  thousand,  ua-u  ■x-rvrnKtir^iXtoi.  We  have  the  authority 
of  all  the  best  MSS.  editions,  and  versions,  Vul.  both  the  Sy. 
Eth.  Ara,  Sax.  and  Cop.  for  rejecting  as-si,  about. 

51.  Which  struck  them  still  more  with  astonishment  and  ad. 
miration^  ^cm  Xixv  ck  7rc^i~'rti  bv  exuroa;  e^i?-xvTo  km  t^acft^^av.  The 
two  last  words  are  vvanting  in  three  MSS.  with  which  agree  the 
Vul.  Sy.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions. 

52.  Their  minds  were  stupijied^  ajv  v  kx^^ix  xvtmv  TreTrapu/zevitj 
Diss.  IV.  §  22,  23,  24. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

2.  IVith  impure,  (that  is,  umcashen)  hands,  x,t>ivxii  x^pn-i,  tut'' 
esiv  aviTTToii.  E.  T.  fVith  defiled,  (that  is  to  say,  xeith  unzcashen) 
hands.  The  Gr.  word  rendered,  here,  impure,  and  in  the  E.  T. 
defiled,  literally  signifies  common.  It  was  quite  in  the  Jewish 
idiom,  to  oppose  common  and  holy,  the  most  usual  signification 
of  the  latter  word,  in  the  O.T.  being,  separated  from  common,  and 
devoted  to  sacred,  use.  Diss.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  9,  &c.  Their  meals 
were  (as  the  Apostle  expresses  it,  1  Tim.  iv.  5.)  sanctified  by  the 
word  of  God  and  prayer.  They  were,  therefore,  not  to  be  touch- 
ed with  unhallowed  hands.  The  superficial  Pharisee,  who  was 
uniform  (wherever  religion  was  concerned)  in  attending  to  ^he 
letter,  not  to  the  spirit,  of  the  rule,  understood  this  as  implying 
solely  that  they  must  wash  their  hands  before  they  eat.  As  we 
learn,  from  antiquity,  that  this  Evangelist  wrote  his  Gospel  in  a 
Pagan  country,  and  for  the  use  of  Gentile,  as  well  as  Jewish, 
converts,  it  was  proper  to  add  the  explanation  tut  e?-tv  xviTren;^ 
to  the  epithet  xoivxti,  which  might  have  otherwise  been  misunder- 
stood by  many  readers.     Pref.  §  5. 

3.  All  the  Jews  who  observe.  We  must,  with  Markland, 
render  thus,  wavres  ot  la^xiot  y-pxravm'  otherwise  we  represent  all 
the  Jews  as  observing  the  traditions,  though  it  is  certain  that  the 
Sadducees  did  not  observe  them.  To  omit  repeating  the  article 
beforethe  participle,  is  not  unexampled  in  these  writings. 

3,  4.  For  the  Pharisees — eat  not  until  they  have  washed  their 
hands,  by  pouring  a  little  water  upon  them  ;  and  if  they  be  come 
from  the  market,  by  dipping  them — «<  yxp  ^xp'.trxiot — £«v  ^jj  TrvyfA-v 


*iH.  vn. 


S.  MARK.  205 


T«<,  ««  ta-B-mTt.  E.  T.  For  ^/je  Pharisees — except  they  zoash  their 
hands  oft,  eat  not ;  (uid  v:hen  they  come  from  the  market,  ex. 
cept  they  wash,  they  cat  not.  A  small  degree  of  attention  will 
suffice  to  convince  a  judicious  reader,  that  there  must  be  a  mis- 
take in  this  version.  For  if,  by  what  we  are  told,  v.  3.  we  are 
to  understand,  as  is  allowed  by  every  body,  that  they  did  not 
€at,  on  any  occasion,  till  they  had  washed  their  hands;  to  what 
purpose  was  this  added,  v.  4.  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  zoash,  they  eat  not?  Could  any  person  sup. 
pose  that,  if  washing  before  meals  was  a  duty,  their  having  been 
at  the  market,  where  they  were  most  exposed  to  defilement,  would 
release  them  from  the  obligation  ?  Besides,  there  is,  in  the  first 
clause,  an  indistinctness  and  obscurity  which  leaves  the  reader 
much  at  a  loss  for  the  meaning.  Except  they  wash  oft,  they  eat 
not.  Does  this  imply,  that  they  must  wash  often  before  every 
meal  ?  or  that  their  washing  frequently  before  one  meal  will  com- 
pensate for  their  not  washing  at  all  before  another  ?  It  is  well 
known,  and  indeed  the  circumstances  of  the  story,  as  related 
here,  and  in  Mt.  may  satisfy  us,  that  neither  of  these  was  the 
case.  For  illustrating  this  passage,  let  it  be  observed,  1st,  that 
"the  two  verbs,  rendered  wash  in  the  E.  T.  are  ditferent  in  the 
original.  The  first  is  viipMvrix.i,  properly  translated  joas/*;  the 
second  is  fiaTrTis-Myrctt,  which  limits  us  to  a  particular  mode  of  ^ 
washing  ;  for  (ixTFTi^u  denotes  to  plunge,  to  dip.  This  naturally 
suggests  the  idea,  that  the  word  Trvy/^it,  in  the  first  clause,  added 
to  vtipuDTxt,  may  express  the  manner  of  washing,  and  so  complete 
the  contrast  in  the  first  and  second  clauses,  nuy^j),  according 
to  the  old  lexicographers,  signifies  the  fist,  or  the  hand  contract- 
ed for  grasping  ;  but  I  find  no  authority  for  rendering  it  oft.  In 
modern  lexicons  crebro  is  admitted  as  one  meaning.  But  this,  1 
suspect,  is  solely  because  the  Vul.  so  translates  the  word  in  this 
passage.  The  suspicion  of  Er.  is  not  implausible,  that  the  old 
translator  had  read  Trfxnj.  Perhaps  it  is  still  more  likely,  that 
he  had  supposed  ■xvy/^i]  to  have  come  into  the  place  of  7rvK¥>], 
through  the  blunder  of  some  early  copyist.  The  first  Sy,  trans- 
lator has,  from  the  same  cause,  the  not  understanding  of  the  im- 
port of  7n;y|K.j)  in  this  place,  rendered  it  by  a  word  denoting  care, 
fully,  which,  though  equally  unwarranted,  suits  the  sense  better 
than  crebro.  The.  who  is  in  this  followed  by  Euth  supposes 
VOL.  ^v.  36 


206  XOTES  ON 


CH.  \iU 


that  the  word  may  mean  up  to  the  elbozc.  But  as  neither  of  these 
seems  to  have  been  versed  in  Jewish  ceremonies,  their  judajment, 
in  a  point  of  this  kind,  is  of  little  weight.  Besides,  it  destroys 
the  contrast  clearly  indicated  by  the  Evangelist  between  »(xr£(» 
and  AacTm^HTi.  The  opinion  of  Wet.  I  think  with  bishop  Pearce, 
is,  on  the  whole,  far  the  most  probable,  that  the  word  denotes 
here  a  handful.  This  is,  at  least,  analogical.  Thus /oo^,  in  most 
languages,  denotes,  "  the  length  of  the  foot."  The  like  may  be 
said  of  cubit  and  span.  As  the  sense  manifestly  supplies  the 
word  water.,  the  import  is  a  handful  (that  is,  a  small  quantity) 
of  water.  "  B«5rT(^£5-tffl»,"  says  that  excellent  critic,  "  est  raa- 
"  nus  aquae  immergere,  inrnrixi  manibus  afl'undere,"  This  is 
more  especially  the  import,  when  the  words  are,  as  here,  oppos. 
ed  to  each  other.  Otherwise  v<a-r£(»,  like  the  general  word  to 
r^-ash  in  Eng.  may  be  used  for  Sa^r/^nv,  to  dip,  because  the  genus 
comprehends  the  species;  but  not  conversely  3*ffTi^«»  for  ytT. 
Ten,  the  species  for  the  genus.  By  this  interpretation,  the  words, 
which,  as  rendered  in  the  common  version,  are  unmeaning,  ap- 
pear both  significant  and  emphatical ;  and  the  contrast  in  the  Gr. 
is  preserved  in  the  translation.  The  Vul.  does  not  confound 
the  two  verbs  as  the  E.  T.  does:  at  the  same  time  it  fails  in 
marking  the  precise  meaning  of  each.  Phuriscei  enim — nisi  ere. 
bra  laverint  manus,  non  manducant :  et  ajoro,  nisi  baptizentur, 
non  comedunf.  Ar.  whose  object  is  to  trace  etymology,  not  to 
speak  either  intelligibly  or  properly,  renders  Trvytui  pugillatinu 
Be.  as  unmeaningly, -says  j3u^«o.  Er.  Leo,  Cal.  and  Cas.  follow 
the  Vul.  the  three  former  saying  crebro,  the  last  sccpe.  None 
of  them  sui!iciently  distinguishes  the  two  verbs.  They  use  the 
verb  lavare.,  in  the  active  voice,  in  the  first  clause,  in  the  passive 
in  the  second  :  seeming  to  intimate,  that  in  the  first  case  the 
hands  only  were  washed;  in  the  second  the  whole  body.  The 
Vul.  gives  countenance  to  this  interpretation.  But  it  ought  to 
be  observed,  that  ^ctTms-mrxt  is  not  in  the  passive  voice,  but  in 
the  middle,  and  is  contrasted  to  ifil-a*Txt,  also  in  the  middle;  so 
that  bv  every  rule  the  latter  must  be  understood  actively,  as  well 
as  the  former.  All  the  modern  versions  I  have  seen,  are,  less  or 
more,  exceptionable  in  the  same  way. 

4.  Baptisms  of  cups,  ^xTTiTt^m  Ts-ar-^siu*.     E.  T.   The  rcash' 
ing  of  Ciips.     I  have  chosen  to  retain  the  original  word  for  the 


CH.  vii.  S.  MARK.  207 

following  reasons:  First,  It  is  not  an  ordinary  washing,  for  the 
sake  of  cleanliness,  which  a  man  may  perform  in  any  way  he 
thinks  convenient,  that  is  here  meant ;  but  it  is  a  religious  cere- 
mony, practised  in  consequence  of  a  sacred  obligation,  real  or 
imagined.  Secondly,  The  analogy  that  subsists  in  phraseology 
between  the  rites  of  the  old  dispensation  and  those  of  the  new, 
ought,  in  mv  opinion,  to  be  more  clearly  exhibited  in  transla. 
tions  of  Scripture,  than  they  generally  are.  It  is  evident,  that 
first  John's  bnptism,  and  afterwards  the  Christian,  though  of  a 
more  spiritual  nature,  and  directed  to  a  more  sublime  end,  ori. 
ginated  in  the  usages  that  had  long  obtained  among  the  Jews. 
Yet,  from  the  style  of  our  Bible,  a  mere  Eng.  reader  would  not 
discover  that  affinity  wliich,  in  this,  and  some  other  instances, 
is  so  manifest  to  the  learned.  The  Heb.  '^aa  perfectly  corresponds 
to  the  Gr.  ^xTirrai  and  fixTm^u,  which  are  synonymous,  and  is  al- 
ways rendered  by  one  or  other  of  them  in  the  Sep.  I  am  not  for 
multiplying  technical  terms,  and  therefore  should  not  blame  a 
translation  wherein  the  words  baplize.  baptism^  and  others  of  the 
same  stamp,  were  not  used;  if  in  their  stead  we  had  words  of 
our  own  growth,  of  the  same  import.  Only  let  uniformity  be 
observed,  whether  in  admitting,  or  in  rejecting  them  :  for  thus 
we  shall  sooner  attain  the  scriptural  use,  and  discover  how  far 
the  latter  were  analogous  to  the  former  institutions.  If  it  be 
asked,  why  I  have  not  then  rendered  ^xTrrnrmrxi.  in  the  preced- 
ing clause,  baptize  ?  I  answer,  1st,  That  the  appellation  bap- 
tisms^ here  given  to  such  washings,  fully  answers  the  purpose; 
and,  2dly,  That  the  way  I  have  rendered  that  word,  shows  bet- 
ter the  import  of  the  contrast  between  it  and  u-'^mTxi,  so  mani- 
festly intended  by  the  Evangelist.  The  Vul.  in  this  instance, 
favours  this  manner,  saying  here,  baptismata  calicuin,  and  Heb. 
ix.  10.  variis' baptismatibiis  ;  but  has  not  been  imitated  by  later 
translators,  not  even  by  those  who  translated  from  the  Vul.  and 
have  been  zealous  for  retaining  the  words  which  are  retained  in 
that  version,  as  consecrated. 

9.  J  e judge  tre//,  continued  he^  in  annulling,  y,xt  eXsyiv  xvroii, 
K«A»;  xhTHTs.  E.  T.  And  he  said  unto  them ^  Full  o:eU  ye  rejects. 
Bishop  Pearce  justly  prefers  the  marginal  version,  frustrate,  to 
the  textuary  reject.  But  I  cannot  appi-ovehis  other  amendment 
of  disjoining  the  adverb  xxXnii  from  xBiniTs.  with  which  the  struc- 
ture of  the  sentence  leads  us  to  connect  it.  and  prefixing  it  to  £>,?. 


208  NOTES  ON  ch.  tii, 

ytv,  thus  making  it,  he  said  well.  It  would  be  a  sufficient  rea.. 
son  against  this  alteration,  that,  where  there  is  not  a  good  reason 
for  changing,  it  is  safer  to  follow  the  order  of  the  words  in  the 
original.  But  were  the  Gr.  Avhat  it  is  not,  equally  favourable 
to  both  interpretations,  there  is  the  strongest  reason  here  for  pre- 
ferring the  common  one.  It  is  not  in  the  manner  of  these  biog- 
raphers, nor  does  it  suit  the  taste  that  prevails  through  the 
whole  of  their  writings,  to  introduce  any  thing  said  by  our  Lord, 
accompanied  with  an  epithet  expressing  the  opinion  of  the  wri- 
ter. They  tell  the  world  what  he  said,  and  what  he  did,  but  in- 
variably  leave  the  judgment  that  ought  to  be  formed  about  both, 
to  the  discernment  of  their  readers.  The  declared  verdicts  of 
others,  whether  friends  or  enemies,  as  becomesfaithful  histori- 
ans, they  also  relate;  but,  like  zealous  disciples,  wholly  intent 
on  exhibiting  their  Master,  they  care  not  though  they  themselves 
pass  totally  unnoticed.  Their  manner  is  exactly  that  of  those 
who  considered  all  his  words  and  actions  as  far  above  standing 
in  need  of  the  feeble  aid  of  their  praise.  The  two  examples  pro- 
duced by  that  author  do  not  in  the  least  justify  the  change,  nor 
invalidate  a  syllable  of  what  has  been  now  advanced.  In  neither 
are  they  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  but  of  the  interlocutors  in- 
trod'iced  in  the  history.  The  first  is,  J.  viii.  48.  'Ot  hvSxtot  eiyrov 
»v}a>^  Ov  x«Aft)5  XiyofA,ev,  The  Jews  said  to  him,  Have  ive  not  rea- 
son to  say"?  The  other  is,  xiii.  13.  where  our  Lord  says,  'Yjite<? 
<puti{]i  pL.i  'O  ^i^ccTt,%>.'^  }^  O  x,vpi®^^  f^  xosA(V5  P^eyele^  Ye  call  me^ 
The  teacher.,  and  The  master,  and  ye  say  right.  I  am  aware 
that  the  diiference  may  not  be  thought  material  ;  but  I  cannot 
help  considering  the  slightest  alteration  as  material,  which  affects 
the  taste  of  these  invaluable  writings,  and  thereby  tends  to  de- 
prive  us  of  an  important  criterion  of  their  genuineness  and  divine 
original.  Diss.  III.  §  18. — Ye  judge  well.  This  is  spoken  iro- 
nically. See  notes  on  Mt.  xxiii.  32,  and  xxvi.  45.  and  on  J.  iv.  17. 

11,  12.  But  ye  maintain.,  '  If  a  man  say  to  father  or  mother., 
^  Be  it  corban  (that  is,  devoted)  whatever  of  mine  shall  projit 
'  thee,^  he  must  not  thenceforth  do  aught  for  his  father  or  his 
mother,  vfuc-a  h  Xiyen,  Ei«v  hv/i  ccv6^o)Tr(^  ro)  Trxrpt  t)  tjj  f^)}r^t,  Kop- 
Coiv  (o  £r'  ^tu^ov^  0  iisi-v  i%  ty-a  u(PiXyi6y,<i'  %ai  iix.£Tt  ot.<puri  avrev  aoev  ttoH}' 

trcti  ra>  -TTctf^i  avrs  v)  tt)  y.}jr^i  uoth.  E.  T.  But  ye  say,  '  If  a  man 
^  shall  say  to  his  father  or  mother.  It  is  corban  (that  is  to  say^ 


CH.    VII. 


S,  MARK.  20J) 


'  a  gift)  by  whatsoever  thou  mightest  be  profited  by  ?ne,'  he 
shall  be  Jree;  and  ye  suffer  him  no  more  to  do  aught  for  his 
father  or  his  mother.  For  the  illustration  of  this  passage,  in 
which  it  must  be  acknowledged  there  is  some  difficulty,  let  us, 
first,  attend  to  the  phrase,  it  is  corban.  As  corban^  in  the  ori- 
ginal, is  not  accompanied  with  the  substantive  verb,  it  suits  bet- 
ter the  import  of  the  passage,  to  supply  it  in  the  imperative,  be 
it.,  than  in  the  indicative,  it  is.  Whatever  the  man  meant  to  do, 
it  is  evident  that,  by  the  form  of  Avords  specified,  the  thing  vv^as 
done,  and  he  was  bound.  The  expression,  therefore,  ought  not  to 
imply  that  the  obligation  had  been  contracted  before.  Be.  who 
has  been  followed  by  most  modern  translators,  erred  in  inserting 
the  verb  est.  He  ought  either,  with  the  Vul.  to  have  left  the 
ellipsis  unsupplied,  or  to  have  said,  *//,  or  esio.  KopQav  is  a  Sy. 
word,  which  this  Evangelist,  who  did  not  write  in  a  country 
where  that  language  was  spoken,  has  explained  by  the  Gr.  word 
St^pev,  and  signifies  here  a  gift  made  to  God,  or  a  thing  devoted. 
Our  translators  say,  by  lohatsoever  thou  mightest  be  profited  by 
me;  that  is,  when  expressed  more  fully,  '  That  is  corban^  what- 

*  ever  it  be,  by  which  thou  mightest  be  profited  by  me.'  Now, 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  expression,  some  explain  it  as  import- 
ing, '  Let  every  donation  I  make  to  God  turn  out  to  thy  advan- 

*  tage.'  And  they  suppose,  that  when  a  man  has  once  said  this, 
he  is,  every  time  he  makes  a  present  to  the  temple,  or  an  oblation 
on  the  altar,  to  be  considered  as  discharging  the  duty  he  owes  to 
his  parents.  This  seems  to  be  the  sense  of  the  Vul.  Si  dixerit 
homo  pafri  aut  matriy  Corban  (quod  est  donum)  quodcunque.ex 
me  tibi  profuerit.  To  the  same  purpose,  though  in  different 
words,  Er.  Zu.  Cal.  and  Cas.  From  Be.'s  version  it  would  be 
difficult  to  conclude  what  had  been  his  apprehension  of  the  mean- 
ing. His  words  are,  Si  quispiam  dixerit  patri  vel  matri^  Corbari 
(id  est  donum)  est.,  quocunque  a  me  juvari posses^  insons  crit. 
But  by  a  marginal  note  on  the  parallel  passage  in  Mt.  he  has 
shown  that  his  idea  was  the  same  with  that  of  the  ancient  inter- 
preter, "  Sensus  est,  quicquid  templo  donavero,  cedet  in  rem 
"  tuam,  perinde  enim  est,  ac  si  tibi  dedero."  There  are  several 
reasons  which  lead  me  to  think,  that  this  cannot  be  the  sense  of 
the  words.  In  the  first  place,  such  a  method  of  transferring  the 
benefit  of  oblations  and  gifts  (if  compatible  with  their  usages, 
which  I  very  much  doubt)  would  have  deprived  the  giver  of  all 


210  NOTES  ON  en.  yix. 

the  advantage  resulting  from  them.  We  may  believe  it  would 
not  suit  the  sj stem  of  the  covetous  and  politic  Pharisees,  wlio 
~  -were  the  depositaries  of  the  sacred  treasure,  to  propagate  the 
opinion,  that  the  same  gifts  and  offerings  could  be  made  equally 
to  redound  for  the  benefit  of  two  or  three,  as  of  one.  This  would 
have  been  teaching  the  people  an  economy  in  their  oblations  and 
presents  to  the  temple,  which  but  ill  suited  the  spirit  of  their 
doctrine.  2dly,  The  effect  of  this  declaration  could,  at  the  most, 
onl}^  have  been  to  release  the  son,  who  said  so,  from  the  obliga- 
tion of  giving  any  support  to  his  father,  or  doing  aught  for  him; 
but  it  could  never  be  construed  into  a  positive  obligation  to  do 
nothing.  By  saying,  '  I  will  do  this  for  you,  I  will  transfer  to  you 
'  the  merit  of  all  my  oblations,'  I  cannot  be  understood  to  pre- 
clude myself  from  doing  as  much  more  as  I  please.  Yet  this  was 
the  effect  of  the  words  mentioned,  as  we  learn  from  the  sacred 
writers.  Thus  Mt.  says  expressly,  that  after  a  man  has  made 
this  declaration,  4^  jm,j}  Tif4,i]ir>j  (rather  Ti/^^a-a,  as  it  is  in  some  noted 
MSS.  and  early  editions),  Ne  shall  not  honour  his  father  or  his 
mother.  I  know,  that  in  Be.'s  translation,  and  those  which  fol- 
low it,  this  argument  is  in  a  manner  annihilated.  By  making  the 
■words  now  quoted  belong  to  the  hypothetical  part  of  the  sentence, 
and  introducing,  as  the  subsequent  member,  without  warrant 
from  the  original,  the  words  he  shall  be  free^  translators  have 
darkened  and  enervated  the  whole.  But  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees  extended  farther  than  to  release  the  child  from  the 
duty  of  supporting  his  parents;  nay,  that  it  extended  so  far  as 
to  bring  him  under  an  obligation  not  to  support  them,  is  still 
more  evident  from  what  is  told  by  Mr.  evx,  en  xi^nre^  Ve  suffer 
him  no  more  to  do  aught  for  his  father  or  his  mother.  This 
plainly  expresses,  not  that  he  is  at  liberty  to  do  nothing  for  them 
if  he  choose  to  do  nothing,  but  that  he  must  never  after  do  aught 
for  them,  if  he  would.  This  appears,  even  from  the  common  trans- 
lation, whose  words  I  have  quoted;  though  the  passage  is  greatly 
marred  by  the  same  unwarranted  supply  as  in  Mt.  I  may  justly 
say  marred.,  since  the  words  supplied  are  inconsistent  with  those 
which  follow.  A  man  is  free,  who  may  do,  or  not  do,  as  he 
pleases.  This  was  not  the  case.  The  same  act  which  superseded 
the  obligation  of  the  commandment,  brought  him  under  a  coun. 
ter-obligation,  which,  according  to  the  Pharisaical  doctrine,  he 
was  less  at  liberty  to  infringe  than  ever  he  had  been  with  regard 


CH,  vii.  S.  MARK.  211 

to  the  former.  The  method  of  getting  rid  of  God's  command- 
ment, we  see,  was  easy ;  but  there  was  no  release  from  their  tra- 
dition. 3dly,  Our  Lord,  in  both  places,  mentions  two  com- 
mandments of  the  law,  in  regard  to  parents,  the  one  enjoining 
honour  to  them,  the  other  prohibiting,  under  the  severest  sanc- 
tion, that  kind  of  dishonour  which  consists  in  contumelious 
words.  Both  are  introducetl  in  illustration  of  the  sentiment  with 
which  he  began,  that  they  preferred  their  own  traditions  to  the 
commandments  of  God.  Now  the  mention  of  the  divine  denun- 
ciation against  those  who  treat  their  parents  with  reproachful 
language,  was  foreign  to  the  purpose,  if  there  was  nothing  in  the 
maxims  of  the  Pharisees  here  animadverted  on,  which  tended  to 
encourage  such  criminal  conduct.  But  the  speech  of  the  son,  as 
those  interpreters  explain  it,  "  May  every  offering  I  make  to 
"  God  redound  to  your  advantage,"  cannot  be  said  to  be  abusive, 
or  even  disrespectful.  With  whatever  view  it  may  be  spoken, 
it  carries  the  appearance  of  reverence  and  regard.  See  Mt.  xv. 
4.  N.  The  An.  Eng.  version  has  suggested  a  different  meaning, 
to  wit,  that  the  son  had  actually  given,  or  intended  to  give,  to 
the  temple,  all  that  he  could  afford  to  bestow  on  his  parents.  If 
any  one  shall  tell  his  father  or  his  mother,  that  zohat  he  could 
bestow  for  their  relief  is  corban,  that  is,  to  be  given  to  the  tem- 
ple ;  1/ on  discharge  him  from  the  obligation  of  doing  anything 
for  his  father  or  his  mother.  And  in  the  parallel  passage  in 
Mt.  It  is — is  dedicated  to  the  temple, — though  the  original  does 
not  authorise  the  change  of  the  ten,se.  This  meaning  Mr.  Har- 
wood  also  has  introduced  into  his  paraphrase,  which  he  calls  a 
liberal  translation.  Mt.  xv.  .5.  But  you,  in  direct  opposition  to 
this  divine  command,  say.  That  zchosoever  dedicates  his  sub. 
stance  to  pious  and  religious  uses,  is  und^r  no  obligation  to  re- 
lieve an  aged  and  necessitous  parent.     And  Mr.  vii.  11,  12. 

that,  if  any  man  bequeath  his  fortune  to  the  service  of  the  tem- 
ple., from  that  moment  he  ceases  to  be  under  any  obligation  at 
all,  to  relieve  the  most  pressing  zcants  of  his  aged  and  necessi- 
tous parents.  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  attempt  a  refutation 
of  this  opinion,  or,  rather,  these  opinions  ;  for  more  ways  than 
one  are  suggested  here,  and  a  sort  of  casuistry,  which,  by  the 
way,  savours  more  of  the  corruptions  of  the  church  than  of  those 
of  the  synagogue.  Only  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  second  and 
third   arguments   urged   against    the   former   hypothesis,    serve 


212  NOTES  ON  cii.  th. 

equally  against  this;  to  which  I  shall  add,  that,  as  no  Jewisli 
customs  have  been  alleged  in  support  of  it,  it  is  far  from  being 
what  the  words  would  naturally  suggest.  If  such  had  been 
our  Lord's  meaning,  the  obvious  expression  would  have  been, 
not,  If  a  man  say  to  his  father,  but,  If  a  man  dedicate  or  be- 
queath to  the  temple.  Whereas  the  efficacy  in  the  text  is  laid 
entirely  on  what  he  says,  not  on  what  he  does,  or  intends  to  do* 
For  my  part,  I  agree  with  those  who  think  that,  by  the  expres- 
sion which  I  have  rendered,  be  it  devoted^  whatever  of  mine  shall 
profit  thee,  the  son  did  not  directly  give,  or  mean  to  give,  any 
thing  to  God  ;  he  only  precluded  himself  from  giving  any  relief 
to  his  parents.  For  if  he  should  afterwards  repent  of  his  rash- 
ness, and  supply  them  with  any  thing,  he  had  by  (what  I  may 
call)  eventually  devoting  it  to  God,  given,  according  to  the  Pha*. 
risaic  doctrine,  the  sacred  treasury  a  title  to  reclaim  it.  Gro.  is 
of  opinion,  that  this  chance  of  eventual  profit  to  the  treasury, 
whereof  the  priests,  and  the  leading  men  of  the  Pharisees,  had 
the  management,  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  establishment  of 
such  impious  maxims.  The  words,  therefore,  be  it  corban,  or 
devoted,  involve  an  imprecation  against  himself,  if  he  shall  evej' 
bestow  any  thing  to  relieve  the  necessities  of  his  parents  ;  as  if 
he  should  say  to  them,  '  May  I  incur  all  the  infamy  of  sacrilege 
'  and  perjury,  if  ever  ye  get  a  farthing  from  me  ;'  than  which  we 
can  hardly  conceive  any  thing  spoken  by  a  son  to  his  parents, 
more  contemptuous,  more  unnatural,  more  barbarous,  and  con- 
sequently more  justly  termed  xxKo>,oytoij  opprobrious  language. 
Lightfoot  quotes  a  passage  from  a  Rabbinical  performance,  which 
sets  the  intent  of  such  expressions  in  the  clearest  light.  When 
a  man  had  a  mind  to  make  a  vow  against  using  any  particular 
thing,  suppose  wine,  he  said.  Let  all  the  wine  that  I  shall  taste 
be  conem,  a  word  of  similar  import  with  corban.  By  saying  so^ 
it  was  not  understood  that  he  devoted  any  thing  to  God,  but  that 
he  bound  himself  never  to  taste  wine.  And  if,  notwithstanding 
this,  he  was  afterwards  induced  to  drink  wine,  he  became  both 
sacrilegious  and  perjured  ;  sacrilegious,  because  the  wine  was  no 
sooner  tasted  by  him  th'an  it  was  sacred;  perjured,  because  he 
had  broken  his  vow  ;  for  such  declarations  were  of  the  nature  of 
TOWS.  It  appears  from  Maimonides,  that  the  term  came,  at 
length,  to  denote  any  thing  prohibited.  To  say.  It  is  corban  to 
mp,  is  to  say,  I  dare  not  use  it;  to  me  it  is  all  one  as  though  it 


CH.  VII.  S.  MARK.  213 

were  consecrated  to  God.  In  the  above  explanation,  we  are  sup- 
ported by  the  authority  of  Gro.  Capellus,  Lightfoot,  all  deeply 
conversant  in  Jewish  literature;  with  whom  also  asrree  these  later 
critics,  L.  CI.  Beau.  Wh.  Wet.  Pearce,  and  several  others.  Some 
of  our  late  Eng.  translators  seem  also  to  have  adopted  this  inter- 
])retation.  The  only  di^culty  that  remains  in  the  sentence  arises 
from  the  conjunction  >c.\  which,  in  sentences  conditional  or  com- 
parative, where  the  concluding  member  has  an  immediate  depen- 
dence on  the  preceding,  appears  to  break  the  natural  connection, 
by  forming  o-ne  of  a  different  kind.  To  this  I  answer,  with  Gro. 
that  the  k:,  in  the  N.  T.  like  the  H?b.  ,,  is  sometimes  a  mere  ex- 
pletive, and  sometimes  has  the  power  of  other  conjunctions.  I 
shall  mention  some  of  the  examples  in  the  Gospels,  referred  to 
by  that  author.  The  learned  reader  may  compare  the  original 
with  the  common  translation,  Mt.  xxviii.  9.  L.  ii.  15.  21.  v.  35. 
vs..  51.  In  all  these,  the  translators  have  dropped  the  copulative 
entirely.  In  L.  il.  27,  28.  they  have  rendered  it  then.)  and  in  L. 
xiv.  1.  that.  Kvery  impartial  person  will  judge  whether  it  be  a 
greater  latitude  in  translating  to  omit  a  conjunction,  which,  in 
certain  cases  not  dissimilar,  is  allowed  to  be  an  expletive,  or  to 
insert,  rather  interpolate,  a  whole  clause,  which  is  not  only  not 
necessary,  but  not  altogether  consistent  with  the  rest  of  the  pas- 
sage. The  last  clause,  v.  12.  is  here  rendered  more  according  to 
the  sense,  than  according  to  the  letter.  '  Ye  maintain — he  must 
*"  not  do,'  is  entirely  equivalent  to,  '  Ye  do  not  permit  him  to 
-  do :'  for  it  was  only  what  they  permitted  or  prohibited  by  their 
doctrine,  of  which  he  was  speakiiig.  But  the  former  is  the  only- 
way  here  of  preserving  the  tenor  of  the  discourse.  In  the  latter, 
the  first  member  of  the  sentence  is  in  the  words  of  the  Pharisees, 
the  second  in  the  words  of  our  Lord. 

19.   It  entereth  not  into  his  heart.,  but  into  his  belly .,  whence 
all  impurities  in  the  victuals  pass  into  the  sink.,  ovx.  eicrvo^rjerxt 

xudapii^ov  TTxvrx  rx  jipaf.t,»Tx,  E.  T.  It  entereth  not  into  his  heart, 
but  into  the  bellij,  and  goeth  out  into  the  draught.,  purging  all 
meats.  A  late  learned  prelate,  whom  I  have  had  occasion  oftea 
to  quote,  proposes  a  different  version  of  the  above  passage.  The 
way  in  which  he  would  render  it,  as  may  be  collected  from  his 
commentary  and  notes,  is  this  ;  Tt  entereth  not  into  his  heart, 
but  into  his  stomachy  and  goeth  out  into  the  looser  part  of  the 

TOL.    IT.  27 


<il4  NOTES  ON  cH.  yii- 

helli)^  which  pur gclh  all  meats.  Ko/Adsi,  he  says,  commonly  ren- 
dered belli/,  is  often  used  for  s-ojm,oc;^^®-,  stomach.  Thus,  Mt.  xii. 
40.  Jonah  is  said  to  have  been,  ev  m  MtXia.,  in  the  belly  [that  is, 
stomach']  of  the  great  fish.  But,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  Gr. 
word  K«/A(«,  in  no  other  way,  imports  s-aM,*;^^®",  than  as  the  Eng. 
word  belly  imports  stomach.  With  us  it  is  equally  proper  to 
say,  that  Jonah  was  in  the  belljj,  as  that  he  was  in  the  stomach, 
of  the  fish.  Thus  we  say  of  gluttons,  that  all  their  care  is  to  fill 
their  bellies.  Yet  in  such  cases  we  could  not  say  that  either 
the  Gr.  word,  or  the  Eng.  is  used  in  an  acceptation  diflferent 
from  the  common.  Whatever  goes  into  tlie  stomach,  goes  into 
the  belly,  of  which  the  stomach  is  a  part.  Whosoever  goes 
to  Rome  goes  to  Italy.  It  is  common  to  every  language 
often  to  express  the  part  by  the  whole,  and  the  species  by 
the  genus.  This  kind  of  synecdoche  is  so  familiar,  and  even 
so  strictly  proper,  as  hardly  to  deserve  a  place  among  the  tropes. 
Let  it  be  observed  farther,  that  when  a  more  extensive  or  general 
term  is  used,  every  thing  advanced  must  be  suited  to  the  common 
acceptation  of  the  term.  Thus  I  may  say  indifferently,  that  our 
food  goes  into  the  stomach,  or  into  the  belly ;  but  if  I  use  the 
latter  term,  I  cannot  add,  it  passes  thence  into  the  intestines 
(these  being  also  in  the  belly),  which  I  might  have  added,  if  ia 
the  first  clause  I  had  used  the  word  stomach.  The  same  holds 
also  of  the  corresponding  expressions  in  Gr.  and  for  the  same 
reason.  Yet,  in  this  glaringly  improper  manner,  does  the  Evan- 
gelist express  himself,  if  ci<pe^pm,  as  the  Bishop  explains  it,  mean 
a  part  of  the  belly.  If  it  were  necessary  to  go  farther  into  this 
examination,  it  might  be  observed,  that  xpc^p&iv,  by  the  explana- 
tion produced  from  Suidas  and  Pasor,  which  makes  it,  at  the 
most,  answer  only  to  the  intestinum  rectum,  will  not  suit  his 
purpose,  the  secretion  of  the  chyle  being  more  the  work  of  the 
other  Intestines.  Let  it,  at  the  same  time,  be  remembered,  that 
the  version  latrina,  secessus,  is  admitted,  on  all  sides,  to  be  ac- 
cording to  the  common  meaning  of  the  word.  Add  to  this,  that 
KcJ<«/9i^ov  is  susceptible  of  an  easy  explanation  on  this  hypothesis. 
It  agrees  with  ttciv  ;  but  ■xav  does  not  relate  to  ^pui^xrot,.  It  must 
be  explained  from  the  subject  treated,  wav  ;co<vev,  ?rct,v  cacxixproi. 
Nor  can  any  thing  be  clearer  than  the  meaning  and  construction, 
when  the  words  are  thus  explained  :  '  Any  impurity  that  should 


CH.  VII.  S.  MARK.  215 

'enter  from  without,  with  the  food,  into  the  body,  can  never 
'  contaminate  the  man,  because  it  nowise  affects  his  mind,  but 
'  passeth  into  his  belly,  whence  it  is  thrown  out  into  the  sink, 
'  leaving  what  is  fit  for  nourishment,  clear  of  all  dregs  and  de- 
^  filement.'  Gro.  has  well  expressed  the  last  clause,  Si  quid  est 
in  cibo  nafurnlis  imrmmditiw^  id  alvo  ejocfum  purgat  relic- 
turn  in  corpore  cibum.  No  interpretation  more  eflectually  ex- 
poses the  cavil  reported  by  Jerom,  Our  Lord's  words,  so  far 
from  implying  that  all  that  is  swallowed  is  thrown  out  of  the 
body,  imply  the  contrary.  The  other  interpretation  requires 
also,  that  we  do  violence  to  the  words,  in  reading  y.a,6u.pi^o\iTct.  for 
}c»6xon^ev,  without  the  sanction  of  a  single  MS.  edition,  ancient 
version,  or  early  writer. 

22.  Insatiable  desires^  fiMovs^ixi.  E.  T.  Covetonsness.  The 
use  of  the  word  5rA£9Vf|<«  in  the  Sep.  warrants  interpreters  to  ren- 
der it  covetousness^  in  the  N.  T.  But  in  every  place  where  the 
word  occurs,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  properly  limited  to  that 
meaning,  Phav.  and  Suid.  both  define  it  3/  i^f^  t»j?  em^vf^ieti;  ra 
ttXsiov!^  ^Xu,Qii^  they  add,  Trotpct  tw  u.tvo'^oXu^  because  it  is  not  the 
common  classical  use.  Now  as  this  definition  is  applicable  to 
more  vices  than  avarice^  there  are  some  passages  in  Scripture 
where  the  sense  requires  it  should  be  rendered  by  a  more  com- 
prehensive term.  This  is  particularly  the  case  when  the  plural 
number  is  employed,  as  here,  and  2  Pet.  ii.  14. 

24.  Having  entered  a  house,  eiTsxB&iv  bh;  t^jv  oikixv.  But  a  great 
number  of  MSS.  many  of  them  of  the  first  note,  have  no  article. 
Some  of  the  earliest  and  best  editions  have  none.  The  Sy.  and 
the  Go.  interpreters  have  not  read  the  article.  It  is  rejected  by 
Wet.  and  most  critics. 

26.  A  Greek,  'EAAjjv*?,  This  woman  is  called,  Mt.  xv.  21. 
Canaanilish  ;  here  a  Syroplienician,  and  a  Greek.  There  is  in 
these  denominations  no  inconsistencv.  By  birth,  she  was  of 
Sjjrophenicia ;  so  the  country  about  Tyre  and  Sidon  Mas  deno- 
minated ;  by  descent,  of  Canaan,  as  most  of  the  Tyrians  and 
Sidonians  originally  were  ;  and  by  religion,  a  Greek,  accordir  j 
to  the  Jewish  manner  of  distinguishing  between  themselves  and 
idolaters.  Ever  since  the  Macedonian-conquests,  Greek  became 
a  common  name  for  idolater,  or  at  least  one  uncircumcised,  and 
was  held  equivalent  to  (rentile.    Of  this  we  havn  manv  examplp^^ 


216  NOTES  ON  en.  win. 

in  Paul's  Epistles,  and  in  the  Acts.  Jews  and  Greeks,  'E?i^mr^ 
are  the  same  with  Jetcs  and  Gentiles. 

'  31.  Leaving  the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon^  he  returned^ 
VdMv  e^eXfm  ex.  raiv  'epiMv  Tvoit  Kj  :Zi^6)v(^,  -/iXk.  Vul.  Iterum  exiens 
dejxnibiis  Ti/ri,  venit  per  Sidonem.  Agreenble  to  which  are  the 
Cop.  and  the  Sax.  versions,  as  well  as  the  Cam.  and  two  other 
MSS.  which,  instead  of  the  three  last  words  in  Gr.  read  sjA^s  ^ict 
Xi^m(^.  Whatever  may  have  rcconimeiulcd  this  reading  to  Dr. 
Mill,  it  has  no  external  evidence  worth  mentioning,  and  is,  be- 
sides, in  itself,  exceedingly  improbable.  Our  Lord's  ministry  was 
to  the  Jews  :  and  to  their  country  he  appears  to  have  confined 
his  journeys.  Even  Si.  and  Maldonat,  though  both,  especially 
the  last,  not  a  little  partial  to  the  Vul.  give  the  preference  here 
to  the  common  Gr.  Maldonat  says,  "  Creuendum  non  est, 
Christum  in  urbes  Gentilium  ingressum  fuisse,  qui  non  nisi  ad 
oves  quae'  perierant  domus  Israel  se  missum  dixerat.'' 

32.  Who  had  an  impediment  i7i  his  speech^  jLtoyiXu.y.ov.  \ul. 
mutum.  This  deviation  from  the  meaning  is  not  authorised  by  a 
single  MS. 

33.  Spat  upon  his  oion^ngers,  and  put  them  into  the  man^s 
ears^  and  touched  his  tongue^  (Qcc?^  rm  SctKrvP^^  avm  «5  rx  ura. 
ct!;ru,  1^  irrvT'j.c,  i,'4^oc,ro  rr,r,  yX<»~tr^r,  uvra,  E.  T.  put  his  fingers  into 
his  ears,  and  he  spit  and  touched  his  tongue.  The  reference'  of  the 
pronoun  his  is  here  quite  indeterminate.  The  Cam.  MS.  gives  a 
better  arrangement,  TrrvTUi  i^xXt  k-  I.  Two  other  MSS.  say  f/3«sAf 
rm  (Jotx-TfAy?  uvTH  «5  Tx  urx  avrs,  «^  tj-^ciro — Though  one  or  two 
copies  are  of  no  authority ;  yet  as  there  is  no  doubt  about  the 
meaning,  that  arrangement  in  Eng.  which  conduces  most  to  per- 
spicuity, ought  to  be  preferred. 

34.  Ephphatha.     Pr.  Mt.  §  19. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

12  No  sign  shall  be  given  to  this  generation,  u  ^oSnTercci  r>i 
ytveoi  TctvTt,  i-m^'oi-  As  the  negative  in  the  original  is  expressed  by 
the  conditional  particle  a  if,  Simon,  in  his  note  on  the  place,  men- 


CH.    VIII. 


S.  MARK.  217 


tions  this  as  an  argument,  that  the  words  are  of  the  nature  of  an 
oath.  "  Cette  particule  si  semble  indiquer  le  serment."  It  is  true 
that,  among  the  Hebrews,  the  form  of  an  oath  by  imprecation 
was  very  common.  God  do  so  to  mc,  and  more  also,  said  Ruth 
to  her  mother-in-law,  (f  aught  but  death  part  thee  and  me.  This 
was  an  oath  that  she  would  not  leave  her.  Sometimes  there  was 
an  ellipsis  of  the  curse,  and  no  more  than  the  hypothetical  clause 
■was  expressed.  In  this  case,  the  conditional  conjunction  had 
the  force  of  negation,  if  there  was  no  negative  in  the  sentence; 
and  the  contrary  etfect,  if  there  was.  But  as  use  in  every  tongue 
gradually  varies,  it  is  manifest,  and  might  be  proved  by  exam- 
ples, that  the  conditional  particle  came,  at  length,  in  many  cases, 
to  be  understood  merely  as  a  negative.  That  it  is  so  here,  we 
need  no  better  evidence,  than  that,  in  all  the  other  places  of  the 
Gospels,  where  we  have  the  same  declaration,  what  is  here  ex- 
pressed by  It  ^o6ij(j-eTott  c-^/^Hov,  is  expressed  in  them  by  c-£^:^ov  « 
}e6},TeToii.     Mt.  xii.  39.  xvi.  4.  and  L.  xi.  29. 

24.  Having  looked  up,  >^  a.vx'^Xi-^ciq.  E.  T.  And  he  looked 
up.  Av«oA£;rt/v  sometimes  signifies  to  recover  sight,  sometimes 
to  look  upwards  to  an  object  situated  above  us,  sometimes  to 
raise  our  eyes  from  looking  downwards,  or  even  from  a  state  of 
passiveness  to  exertion.  In  this  sense,  to  look  up  is  often  used 
in  Eng.  As  the  subject,  here,  is  the  cure  of  a  blind  man,  many 
are  led  to  prefer  the  first  of  these  senses.  My  reasons,  for  think- 
ing differently,  are  as  follows  :  1st,  When  xv»€xe7reiv,  in  the  Gos- 
pel, signifies  to  recover  sight,  it  indicates  a  complete  recovery, 
which  was  not  the  case  here.  2dl)',  If  it  denote^  here,  he  recover. 
ed  his  sight,  there  is  a  contradiction  in  the  passage,  as  the  same 
reason  would  lead  us  io  infer,  from  the  very  next  verse,  that  he 
had  not  recovered  it;  for  Jesus,  after  doing  something  further, 
sTToDja-ev  uvTovuvxSxiipxi,  made  him  again  look  up.  3dly,  Because 
the  man's  recovering  his  sight  is  expressed  by  a  distinct  clause, 
u7roKeiT£?-ct6ti  t^  ivtQxi-^e  Tv,Xa,vyuc,.  There  is  no  reason  to  adopt 
the  second  meaning  mentioned,  as  the  objects  he  had  to  look 
at  appear  to  have  been  on  a  level  with  himself.  The  third 
sense,  therefore,  which  is  that  of  the  E.'T.  seems  entitled  to  the 
preference.  The  application  is  similar  to  that  in  the  Sep.  Is. 
xlii.  18.  'Oi  rv<pxoi  MaQxi-^ccn  tSc-tt.  E.  T.  Look,  ye  blind,  that 
ye  may  see.  That  the  word  is  sometimes  used  for  looking  at 
things  not  placed  above  us,  is  also  evident  from  L.  xxi.  1. 


218  NOTES  ON 


CH.  VIII. 


2  I  see  men,  whom  I  distinguish  from  trees  only  by  their 

walking,  ^Xt^ru  ryj  ecv6§a>7riig  o>i  ^ev^^cc  Tre^iTrctTuvrui.  E.  T.  I  see 
7nen  as  trees  walking.  But  in  many  MSS,  some  of  them  of  prin- 
cipal note,  in  several  old  editions,  and  in  the  commentaries  of 
The.  and  Euth.  the  words  are,  f/Esrw  t«s  otyS^uTm^,  in  »«  ^a^^ct. 
o^a  Tri^tTTxravrxg.  This  reading  is  preferred  by  both  Mill  and 
Wet.  and  is  preferred  by  Cas.  and  some  modern  interpreters. 
Thus,  the  sentence  ts  made  to  consist  of  two  members,  whereof 
the  second  is  introduced  as  the  reason  for  saying,  in  the  first, 
that  he  saw  men.  I  have  endeavoured  to  give  a  just  expression 
of  the  sense  in  the  version. 

26.  Neither  go  into  the  village,  nor  tell  aught  to  any  of  the 
villagers,  f^i^e  eig  njv  x.ufA.vi')  ciO-eXhi,  f^-^h  ef^tji  Tivt  ev  tt}  xMy.7j.  Vul. 
Vade  in  domum  tuam  ;  et  si  in  vicum  introieris,  nemini  dixeris. 
This  version  has  evidently  sprung  from  a  different  reading  ;  as 
tliere  has  been,  in  fact,  a  great  deal  of  variety,  here,  both  in 
MSS.  and  in  versions.  The  Sy.  and  a  good  majority  of  MSS.  fa- 
vour the  common  reading.  Some  have  thought  that  there  is  an 
impropriety  in  that  reading,  as  it  seems  to  suppose  they  could 
relate  the  miracle  to  people  in  the  village,  though  they  did  not 
enter  it.  But  the  words,  oi  ev  t»i  ii.uy.7i,  are  no  more  than  a  peri- 
phrasis for  the  villagers. 

28.  And  others,  one  of  the  Prophets,  u>^6i  tie  svx  rm  7r§o<p>)Tuv~ 
Vul.  jilii  vero  quasi  unum  de  Prophetis.  In  conformity  to 
which,  the  Cam.  alone  reads  <y?  before  em.     But  no  translation, 

not  even  the  Sax.  concurs  here  with  the  Vul. 

» 

31.  He  began  to  inform  them,  yj^^xro  hSxTKUt  nvrm,  Ch.  t. 
17.  N. 

^  Be  rejected,  et7rs>^oKtixxT.%v6it.  This  word  is,  probably,  used 
in  reference  to  the  expression  in  the  Psalms,  The  stone  zchich  the 
builders  rejected,  iv  et7rs^eKi[/.xs-xv,  as  it  is  rendered  by  the  Seventy. 

37.  What  will  a  man  not  give  ?■  n  Suc-et  eivS^wTreg ;  E.  T.  What 
shall  a  man  give  ?  Gro.  justly  observes,  that  T<,here,  is  equiva- 
lent to  wsir^  ;  How  much  !  What  great  things  !  The  emphasis 
is  better  expressed  in  our  language,  by  the  negative,  which,  how- 
ever strange  it  may  appear,  more  exactly  hits  the  sense,  than  a 
literal  version.  ^ 

^  Ransom,  mrxXkuyy^x.  E.  T.  Exchange.  The  Gr.  word 
means  both;  but  the  first  is,  in  the  present  case,  the  only  proper 


CH.    IX. 


S.  MARK.  219 


term  in  Eng.  We  ransom  what  by  law,  war,  or  accident,  is  for- 
feited, and  in  the  power  of  another,  though  we  may  still  be  in 
possession  :  but  we  always  exchange  what  we  have  for  what  we 
have  not.  If  a  man's  life  be  actually  taken,  it  is  too  late  for  bar- 
tering. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

12,  13.  And  (as  it  is  written  of  the  Son  of  Man),  x.»i  'ttui; 
yey^oiTrrxi  itfi  tov  iiiov  ra  ocvO^w/ra.  E.  T.  And  how  it  is  written  of 
the  Son  of  Maji.  Twelve  MSS.  amongst  which  are  the  Al.  and 
two  others  of  note,  read  icx6u<i  for  ;^  Trcoq.  I  cannot  help  think- 
ing this  a  suificient  warrant  for  receiving  it,  when,  by  the  rules 
of  construction,  uo  proper  meaning  can  be  drawn  from  the  words 
as  they  lie.  The  Vul.  and  Zu.  follow  the  common  reading,  and 
render  ^(w;  quomodo.  Er.  Cas.  Cal.  say  quemadmodiim  ;  which 
may  be  interpreted  either  way.  Be.  whether  it  was  that  he  judg- 
ed K.ct6o)<i  the  true  reading,  or  that  he  thought  Wiw?,  here,  of  the 
same  import,  renders  it  ut.  In  this  he  has  been  followed  by  the 
G.  F.  which  says  comme,  and  Dio.  who  says  sicome.  It  gives 
an  additional  probability,  that  a  similar  clause,  v.  13.  relating 
to  John,  as  this  does  to  Jesus,  which  seems,  in  some  respect, 
contrasted  with  it,  is  ushered  in  with  the  conjunction  x«5»?,  y.x. 
6ui;  yey^otTrreti  tTr  ccvrov.  This  clause  is  very  generally  understood, 
by  interpreters,  as  relating  to  the  coming,  not  to  the  sufferings, 
of  the  Baptist.  I  have,  therefore,  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity, 
transposed  it. 

20.  No  sooner  did  he  see  him,  i$uv  uvrav.  An  ambiguity  in 
both  expressions,  but  such  as,  explained  either  way,  hurts  not 
the  import  of  the  passage. 

23.  If  thou  canst  believe,  to  ei  ^wcurai  zririva-en.  Vul.  Si  po~ 
tes  credere.  The  Sy.  literally  the  same.  I  see  little  occasion 
here  for  criticism.  The  to  is  wanting  in  so  great  a  number  of 
MSS.  that  one  who  thinks  the  construction  embarrassed  by  it,  is 
excusable  in  rejecting  it.  And  even  if  allowed  to  remain,  it  will 
not  be  pretended  that  such  superfluous  particles  are  entirely 
without  example.  The  turns  given  to  the  words,  by  Gro.  by 
KnatchbuU,  and  other  critics,  though  ingenious,  are  too  artificial. 

24.  Supply  thou  the  defects  of  my  faith,  ^oriBu  y^  Tr,  uTn^tot.  E. 
T.  Help  thou  mine  unbelief.     It  is  evident,  from  the  preceding 


220  NOTES  ON 


CH.  IX. 


clause,  vris-evu,  that  MTrn-ix  denotes,  here,  a  deficient  faith ^  not  a 
total  want  of  faith.  I  have  used  the  word  supplj/^  as  hitting 
more  exactly  what  I  take  to  be  the  sense  of  the  passage.  Gro. 
justly  expresses  it,  Quod Jiduciee  7neoe  dcest^  bonitate  tua  supple. 
His  reason  for  not  thinking  that  the  man  asked  an  immediate 
and  miraculous  increase  of  faith,  appears  well  founded  :  "  Nam 
"  ut  augmentum  fiduciaj  ab  Jcsu  speraverit,  et  quidem  subito, 
"  vix  credibile  est."  The  words,  however,  in  the  way  I  have  ren- 
dered them,  are  susceptible  of  either  meaning,  and  so  have  all 
the  latitude  of  the  original. 

25.  He  rebuked,  eTTerif^v'^e.  \\x\.  Cotmninatus  est ;  that  is,  ^e 
severely  threatened.  In  this  manner  the  Gr.  word  is  rendered 
in  the  Vul.  no  fewer  than  eight  times  in  this  Gospel,  where  it 
occurs  only  nine  times.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  in  the 
Gospels  of  Mt.  and  L-  where  we  often  meet  with  it,  it  is  not 
once  so  rendered,  not  even  in  the  parallel  passages  to  those  in 
Mr.  No  La.  translator,  that  I  know,  has  in  this  imitated  the 
Vul.  Some  say  objurgavit ;  some  increpavit,  or  increpuit. 
Beau,  who  says  menaca,  and  Lu.  who  says  ]&clirattete,  are  the  on- 
ly persons  I  know,  who,  in  translating  from  the  Gr.  into  modern 
languages,  have  employed  a  word  denoting  threatened.  If  there 
were  more  evidence  than  there  is,  that  this  is  one  usual  accepta- 
tion of  the  term,  there  would  still  be  sufficient  ground  for  re- 
jecting it  as  not  the  meaning  of  the  Evangelists.  For,  1st,  the 
verb  iTnrtfjLciM  is  used  when  the  object  addressed  is  inanimate,  as 
the  zcind,  the  sea,  a  natural  disease  ;  for  though,  in  such  cases, 
even  when  rendered  rebuke  or  command,  there  is  a  prosopopeia; 
yet,  as  we  immediately  perceive  the  sense,  the  expression  derives 
both  lustre  and  energy  from  the  trope ;  whereas  the  mention  of 
threats,  which  always  introduces  the  idea  of  punishment  to  be 
inllicted  on  disobedience,  being  nowise  apposite  to  the  subject, 
coiild'serve  only  to  render  the  expression  ridiculous.  2dly,  The 
Evangelists  have  often  given  us  the  very  words  of  the  eTrtn/u.'urm 
used  by  Jesus,  but  in  no  instance  do  we  discover  in  them  any 
thing  of  the  nature  of  menace.  We  have  one  example  in  this 
very  verse,  for  it  is  iTrtrtf^t^s-e  y.eym.  3dly,  The  same  word  is 
adopted,  Mt.  xvi.  22.  to  express  the  rebuke  given  by  Peter  to 
his  Master,  in  which  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  tliat  he  em- 
ployed threats.  4thly,  The  Gr.  commentator  Euth.  has  given, 
on  Mt.  xii.  16.  the  word  jrw/jjjyyw/r  as  synonymous  to  e'xsTim<re^ 


CH.  IX.  S.  MARK.  221 

5thly,  Recourse  to  threats,  in  the  orders  given  to  individuals, 
•would  ill  suit  either  the  meekness  or  the  dignity  of  character 
uniformly  supported  by  our  Lord.  Even  the  verb  £^^f(^£MA6«<, 
though  nearer  in  its  ordinary  signification  to  that  of  the  La.  com. 
minor,  yet,  in  no  place  of  the  Gospels,  can  properly  be  rendered 
to  threaten.  It  is  twice  used  by  J.  for  to  groan,  or  to  sigh  deep, 
ly.  There  are  only  two  other  passages  in  which  it  is  applied  io 
our  Lord,  once  by  Mt.  and  once  by  Mr.  In  both  places  the 
words  he  used  are  recorded,  and  they  contain  no  threatening  of 
any  kind.  The  only  term  for  threat,  in  these  writers,  is  an-cMi;, 
for  to  threaten,  xTrsiXnv  and  ;r^oo-«5r«A«v. 

29.  This  kind  cannot  be  dislodged  unless  by  firayer  and  fast, 
ing.  Tsra  ro  ysv^  ev  aSevi  ^vvxtxi  e^iXdnv,  «  k»j  fv  "^^oTtv^ti  text 
vijrstx.  E.  T.  This  kind  can  come  forth  by  nothing  but  by  prayer 
and  fasting.  Some  doubts  have  been  raised  in  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  the  words  this  kind.  The  most  obvious  interpreta- 
tion is,  doubtless,  that  which  refers  them  to  the  word  demon  im- 
mediately preceding.  But  as,  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Mt.  xvii. 
19.  mention  is  made  of  faith,  as  the  necessary  qualification  for 
dispossessing  demons  :  Knatchbull,  and  others,  have  thought 
that  <A/*  Ar/wf/ refers  to  the /a?Y^  that  is  requisite.  But  to  me  it 
appears  an  insurmountable  objection  to  this  hypothesis,  that  we 
have  here  the  same  sentiment,  almost  the  same  expression,  and 
ushered  in  with  the  same  words,  this  kind,  though,  in  what  goes 
before,  there  is  no  mention  of  faith,  or  of  any  thing  but  demon, 
to  which  it  can  refer.  It  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the 
pronouns  and  relatives  in  one  Gospel  refer  to  antecedents  inano< 
ther.  Every  one  of  the  Gospels  does,  indeed,  give  additional  in- 
formation ;  and,  in  various  ways,  serves  to  throw  light  upon  the 
rest.  But  every  Gospel  must  be  a  consistent  history  by  itself- 
otherwise  an  attempt  at  explanation  would  be  in  vain.  Now,  my 
argument  stands  thus:  The  story,  related  in  both  Gospels,  is 
manifestly  the  same;  that  the  words  in  question  may  refer  to  de- 
mon in  Mt.  no  person,  who  attentively  reads  the  passage,  can 
deny  ;  that  they  cannot  refer  to  faith,  but  must  refer  to  demon  in 
Mr.  is  equally  evident.  Either,  then,  they  refer  to  demon  in  both, 
or  the  Evangelists  contradict  one  another.  Other  arguments 
might  be  mentioned :  one  is,  that  the  application  of  yev©-,  to  an 
abstract  quality,  such  a.s  faith,  is,  I  suspect,  unexampled  in  the 
language  of  Scripture ;  whereas,  its  application  to  different  or. 

VOJL.  IV.  2S 


23^  NOTES  ON 


CH.  IX. 


ders  of  beings,  or  real  existences,  is  perfectly  common.  Some 
have  considered  it  as  an  objpction  to  the  above  explanation,  that 
it  supposes  different  kinds  of  demons  ;  and  that  the  expulsion  of 
some  kinds  is  more  difficult  than  that  of  others.  I  answer,  1st, 
The  objection  is  founded  entirely  in  our  ignorance.  Who  can 
say  that  there  are  not  different  kinds  of  demons  ?  or,  that  there 
may  not  be  degrees  in  the  power  of  expelling  ?  Revelation  has 
Hot  said  that  they  are  all  of  one  kind,  and  may  be  expelled  with 
equal  ease.  I  answer,  2dly,  By  this  kind,  is  not  meant  this  kind 
of  demons,  but  this  kind  or  order  of  beings  called  demons.  And 
if  there  be  any  implicit  comparison  in  the  words,  it  is  with  other 
cures.  Another  objection  is,  that  in  Mt.  xvii.  20.  the  power  of 
expulsion  is  ascribed  solely  to  faith  ;  whereas,  here,  it  is  ascrib- 
ed to  prayer  and  fasting.  The  answer  to  this  objection  will,  per- 
haps, show,  that  the  question  does  not  so  much  affect  the  import 
of  the  passage,  as  it  affects  the  grammatical  construction  and 
literal  interpretation  of  the  words.  By  the  declaration.  This 
kind  cannot  be  dislodged,  unless  by  prayer  and  fasting,  we  are 
not,  (as  I  apprehend)  to  understand,  that  a  certain  time  was  to 
be  spent  in  prayer  and  fasting,  before  the  expulsion  of  every  de- 
mon ;  but  that  the  power  of  expelling  was  not  otherwise  to  be 
attained.  Quod  est  causa  caiisce,  say  dialecticians,  est  etiani  cau- 
sa causati.  This  is  conformable  to  the  idioms  which  obtain  in 
every  tongue.  It  was  evidently  concerning  the  power  of  expell- 
ing that  the  disciples  put  the  question,  Why  could  not  zoe ? 

Now,  to  the  attainment  of  that  power,  fasting  and  prayer  were 
necessary,  because  they  were  necessary  for  the  attainment  of  that 
faith,  with  which  it  was  invariably  accompanied.  That  e^eXSeiv 
should  be  used  according  to  the  import  of  the  Heb.  conjugation 
hophal,  may  be  supported  by  many  similar  examples  in  the  N.  T. 

37.  Not  me,  but  him  who  sent  me,  that  is,  '  not  so  much  me 
as  him  who  sent  me.'     Mt.  ix.  13.      ^  N. 

40.  Whoever  is  not  against  you  is  for  you,  'O5  ««  £?•«  x««5'  ;jV»v, 
yxfo  ;jM.»v  £f(v.  But  in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  some  of  them  of 
note,  in  several  editions,  in  the  Vol.  both  the  Sy.  versions,  the 
Sax.  and  the  Go.  the  reading  is  viA.m  in  both  places,  which  is  also 
preferred  by  Gro.  Mill,  and  Wet. 

44.  46.  48.   Their  worm and  their  fire.     'Oc-x»A3j|  Avruii 

^  TO  Tfv^.     Diss.  XII.  p.  I.  §  30. 


CH.  K,  S.MARK.  223 


CHAPTER  X. 

1.  Came  into  the  confines  of  Judea  through  the  country  up- 
on the  Jordan,  tpx,eTai  «5  ret,  opix  tw  la<J«(«5  ^<*  ra  tte^xv  r»  I«/>^ce- 
Mn.  Vul.  Fenit  in  fines  Judaea;  ultra  Jordanem.  The  Sy.  and 
the  Go,  appear  to  have  read  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Vul. 
agreeably  to  which  ^ta  m  is  omitted  in  some  MSS. 

l^.  //  a  woman  divorce  her  husband.     This  practice  of  di- 
vorcing the  husband,  unwarranted  by  the  law,  had  been  (as  Jo- 
sephus  informs  us)  introduced  by  Salome,  sister  of  Herod  the 
Great,  who  sent  a  bill  of  divorce  to  her  husband  Costobarus  ; 
which  bad  example  was  afterwards  followed  by  Herodias  and 
others.     By  law,  it  was  the  husband's  prerogative  to  dissolve  the 
marriage.     The  wife  could  do  nothing  by  herself.     When  he 
thought  fit  to  dissolve  it,  her  consent  was  not  necessary.     The 
bill  of  divorce,  which  she  received,  was  to  serve  as  evidence  for 
her,  that  she  had  not  deserted  her  husband,  but  was  dismissed  by 
him,  and  consequently  free. 

19.  Do  no  injury,  f^  x^o^spf)>r„i.     E.  T.  Defraud   not.  This 
does  not  reach  the  full  import  of  the  Gr.  verb,  which  compre. 
hends  alike  all  injuries,  whether  proceeding  from  force  or  from 
fraud,  and  is  therefore  better  rendered  by  P.  R.     Vous  neferez 
tort  a  per  Sonne.     This  is  followed  by  Sa.  Beau,  and  even  by  Si. 
himself,  who,  changing  only  the  mood,  says,  Nefaites  torte  a 
per  Sonne.  In  the  same  way,  Dio.  has  also  rendered  it.    Nonfar 
danno  a  niuno ;  here  rightly  following  Be.  who  says,  Ne  damno 
quemquam  afficito.    To  the  same  purpose,  the  Vul.  Ne  fraudem 
feceris, -hy  the  sound  of  which,  1  suspect,  our  translators  have 
been  led  into  the  version,   Defraud  not,  which  does  not  hit  the 
meaning  of  the  La. 

21.  Carrying  the  cross,  ctpxi  rov  ^-av^ov.  These  words  are  not  in 
the  Ephrem  and  Cam.  MSS.  There  is  nothing  corresponding  to 
them  in  the  V^ul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions.     Mt.  x.  38.  N- 

25.  Pass  through,  $iiX6uv.  There  is  the  same  diversity  of 
reading  here,  which  was  observed  in  the  parallel  place  in  Mt. 
xix.  24.  But  the  other  reading,  ei<reX.hiVj  is  not  here  so  well  sup. 
ported  by  either  MSS.  or  versious. 


224  NOTES  ON  ch.  x. 

29.  See  the  Note  iramediately  following. 

30.  TVho  shall  not  receive  now,  in  this  world,  a  hundred' 
fold,  houses,  and  brothers,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and  chil- 
dren, and  lands,  with  persecutions.  There  are  two  difficulties 
in  these  words,  of  which  I  have  not  seen  a  satisfactory  solution. 
The  first  is,  in  the  promise,  that  a  man  shall  receive,  in  this  world, 

a  hundred^fold,  houses,  and  brothers The  second  is  in  the 

limitation,  zcit it  persecutions.  As  to  tlie  first,  there  is  no  diffi. 
culty  in  the  promise,  as  expressed  by  the  Evangelists  Mt.  and  L. 
To  say,  barely,  that  men  shall  receive  a  hundred-fold,  for  all 
their  losses,  does  not  imply  that  the  compensation  shall  be  in 
kind  ;  nor  do  I  find  any  difficulty  in  the  declaration,  that  thus 
far  their  recompense  shall  be  in  this  world.  James,  i.  2.  advises 
his  Chri'^tian  brethren  to  count  it  all  joy  when  they  fall  into  di. 
vers  temptations.  Paul,  2  Cor.  vii.  4  says,  concerning  himself, 
that  he  was  exceeding  joyful  in  all  his  tribulation.  The  same 
principle  which  serves  to  explain  these  passages,  serves  to  ex- 
plain the  promise  of  a.present  recompense,  as  expressed  by  Mt. 
and  L.  The  ChrisTian's  faith,  hope,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  were  more  than  sufficient  to  counterbalance  all  his  losses. 

But  if  the  mention  of  houses  and  brothers ,  add  nothing  to 

the  m?aning  of  those  Evangelists,  to  what  purpose  was  it  made 
by  Mr.  ?  Instead  of  enlightening,  it  could  only  mislead,  and  make 
a  retribution  in  kind  be  expected  in  the  present  life.  Some 
things  are  mentioned,  v.  29.  of  which  a  man  can  have  only  one : 
these  Tire  father  and  mother.  In  v.  30.  we  have  mothers,  but 
not  fathers.  Wife  is  mentioned,  v.  29.  but  not  wives,  v.  30. 
Hence  that  profane  sneer  of  Julian,  who  asked  whether  the 
Christian  was  to  get  a  hundred  wives.  As  to  these  omissions, 
however,  there  are  some  varieties  in  MSS.  and  versions.  In  v. 
29.  the  word  ywcuKu.  is  wanting  in  two  MSS.  as  well  as  in  the 
Vul  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions.  None,  indeed,  in  v.  30,  have 
either  yvvxtx-ct  or  ywiciKot<;,  but  many  MSS.  and  some  of  note,  read 
f*,iiT£^ct;  many  also  add  >^  ttxti^ci;  though  these  words,  in  the 
singular,  ill  suit  the  iKoiTovrxTXcuT-tovx,  which  precedes  them.  These 
dififerences  and  omissions  also  contribute  to  render  the  passage 
suspected.  According  to  rule,  if  one  was  repeated,  all  should 
have  been  repeated  ;  and  the  construction  required  the  plura 
number  in  them  all.  Bishop  Pearce  suspects  an  interpolation, 
occasioned  by  some  marginal  correction,  or  gloss,  which  must 


CH.  X.  S.  MARK.  225 

have  been  afterwards  taken  into  the  text.  If  the  text  has  been  in 
this  way  corrupted,  the  corruption  must  have  been  very  early, 
since  the  repetition  in  v.  30.  though  with  some  variety,  is  foun4 
in  all  the  ancient  MSS.  versions,  and  commentaries  extant.  In  a 
case  of  this  kind,  I  do  not  think  a  translator  authorised  to  ex- 
punge a  passage,  though  he  may  fairly  mention  the  doubts  enter- 
tained concerning  it.  In  a  late  publication  of  Mr,  Wakefield's, 
(Silva  Critica)  this  passage  is  explained  in  such  a  manner  (Sect. 
83)  as  makes  the  words  now  in  this  world,  a  hundred^foldy 
houses,  and  brothers,  and  sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children, 
and  lands,  with  persecutions,  to  signify  just  nothing  at  all.  I 
own,  I  am  not  fond  of  a  comment  that  destroys  the  text,  or, 
Avhich  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  exhibits  it  as  words  without 
meaning.  Besides,  the  promise  here  is  so  formally  divided  into 
two  parts,  one  regarding  the  present  life,  the  other  the  future, 
that  it  may  be  fairly  questioned  whether  such  a  total  annihilation 
of  one  essential  part,  does  not  bring  the  significance  of  the  other, 
at  least,  under  suspicion.     See  Mt.  xxvi.  29.  ^  N. 

^  As  to  the  other  question  about  the  qualifying  words,  f^sTo, 
SiuyfAMv,  I  observe  that  the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  read  ^layft-a, 
agreeable  to  which  is  the  Sy.  version  :  but  this  makes  no  altera- 
tion in  the  sense.  I  observe  also,  that  there  are  three  MSS.  none 
of  them  of  any  name,  which  read  f*.eTx  Siwyuev,  after  persecution. 
Wet.  who  commonly  pays  no  regard  to  conjectural  emendations, 
has,  nevertheless,  adopted  this.  A  promise,  according  to  the 
letter,  regarding  things  merely  temporal,  to  be  accompanied  with 
persecutions,  that  learned  and  ingenious  critic  considered  as  illu- 
sory. The  more  a  man  has,  in  that  situation,  his  distress  is  the 
greater.  He  subjoins  :  "  Omnia  vero  plana  erunt,  si,  quse 
"  etiam  ingeniosa  D.  Heinsii  conjectura  fuit,  sequamur  codices 
"  qui  habent  jm,£t«  ^luyfMv.  Atque  ita  promittuntur  halcyonia 
"  et  pacata  tempora  duris  successura."  Thus,  Druthmar,  a 
Benedictine  monk  of  the  ninth  century,  who  wrote  a  commen- 
tary on  Mt.  considers  the  riches  and  power  of  the  pope,  as  a 
clear  fulfilment  of  the  promise  with  regard  to  Peter,  who  put  the 
question,  and  the  large  endowments  of  the  monasteries  as  a  ful- 
filment to  the  rest.  '•'  Nunc  quoque  magnum  regnum  habet 
"  Petrus  de  villis  et  servis  per  oranem  mundum,  et  ipse  et  omnes, 
"  sancti,  propter  amorem  Dei."     T  own  that,  to  me,  all  things 


226  ^  NOTES  ON  en,  x. 

do  not  appear  so  plain,  even  after  the  alteration  proposed  by 
Wet.  If  this  promise,  of  temporal  prosperity,  be  understood  as 
made  to  individuals,  how  is  it  fulfilled  to  the  martyrs,  and  to  all 
those  who  continue  to  be  persecuted  to  the  end  of  their  lives  ? 
But  if  it  be  understood,  as  those  interpreters  seem  to  fancy,  of 
the  church  in  general,  which,  after  a  state  of  persecution  for  near 
three  centuries,  was  put  by  Constantino  in  a  state  of  security 
and  prosperity  ;  the  following  questions  will  naturally  occur  : 
Do  not  the  words  here  used,  manifestly  imply  that  the  promise 
was  intended  for  every  disciple  who  should  come  within  the  des- 
cription ?  Thus,  V.  29.  Ovhii  er/v  »?  ci<l)}jx.eii — There  ts  none  zcho 
shall  have  forsaken —  30.  exv  f^yi  XxQtj — icho  shall  not  receive. 
The  Evangelists,  Mt.  and  L,  are  equally  explicit  on  this  head. 
n«5  05  cc(PiiKiv — I'Vhosoever  shall  have  forsaken —  Xtj-4^eTM — shall 
receive — are  the  words  of  Mt.  And  in  L.  it  is,  Ov$etg  £?-iv  «'« 
flj^p^xEv — There  is  none  Kho  shall  have  forsaken —  «';  a  |t«j  utto- 
^xSy — ffi^o  shall  not  receive. — It  is  impossible  for  words  to  make 
it  clearer.  Now,  could  the  promise  be  said  to  affect  the  actual 
sufferers,  as  the  words  certainly  imply,  if  all  that  it  meant  was, 
'  If  ye,  my  hearers,  have  given  up,  or  shall  give  up,  every  thing 

'  for  my  sake,  houses,  lands,  friends  ; those  who  shall  be  in 

'  your  places,  three  hundred  years  hence,  who  have  suffered 
'  nothing,  being  themselves  perhaps  good  for  nothing,  and  have 
'  lost  nothing,  shall  be  richly  rewarded  for  what  ye  have  done, 
'  and  'shall  live  in  great  opulence  and  splendour.'  If  under, 
stood,  therefore,  of  an  enjoyment  which  every  persecuted  indi- 
vidual would  obtain  here,  after  all  his  sufferings  were  over,  it  is 
not  true  ;  for  many  died  in  the  cause  :  and,  if  understood  of  the 
church  in  general,  it  is  not  to  the  purpose;  nor  can  it,  by  any 
interpretation,  be  made  to  suit  the  terms  employed.  For  my 
part,  if  I  were,  with  Ileinsius  and  Wet.  to  account  f^trx  ^iw/fMv^ 
after  persecution.,  the  true  reading,  I  should  heartily  agree  with 
those  who  consider  this  as  a  strong  evidence  of  the  millennium  ; 
for  in  no  other  way  that  I  know,  can  it  be  consistently  interpret- 
ed. I  have  other  objections  against  that  interpretation  which 
makes  it  relate  to  the  change  that  the  church  was  to  undergo, 
after  being  established  by  the  imperial  laws.  If  our  Lord's 
kingdom  had  been,  what  it  was  not,  a  worldly  kingdom  ;  if  great- 
ness in  it  had  resulted,  as  in  such  kingdoms,  from  wealth  and 
domiaion,  there  would  have  been  reason  to  consider  the  reign  of 


OH.  X.  S.  MARK.  227 

Constantine  as  the  halcyon  days  of  the  church,  and  a  blessed 
time  to  all  its  members.  But  if  the  reverse  was  the  fact ;  if  our 
Lord's  kingdom  was  purely  spiritual  ;  if  the  greatness  of  any 
member  resulted  from  his  humility  and  usefulness  ;  and  if  supe- 
rior authority  arose  purely  from  superior  knowledge  and  charity; 
if  the  riches  of  the  Christian  consisted  in  faith  and  good  works, 
I  am  afraid  the  changes,  introduced  by  the  emperor,  were  more 
the  corrupters,  than  the  establishers,  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ- 
The  name,  indeed,  was  extended,  the  profession  supported,  and 
those  who  assumed  the  name,  when  it  became  fashionable,  and  a 
means  of  preferment,  multiplied  ;  but  the  spirit,  the  life,  and  the 
power,  of  religion,  visibly  declined  every  day.  Let  us  not,  then, 
shamefully,  confound  the  unrighteous  Mammon  with  the  hidden 
treasures  of  Christ.  Those  divine  aphorisms,  called  the  beati- 
tudes, which  ascribe  happiness  to  the  poor,  the  meek,  the  mourn- 
ful, the  hungry,  the  persecuted,  were  not  calculated  for  a  parti, 
cular  season,  but  are  evidently  intended  to  serve  as  fundamental 
maxims  of  the  Christian  commonwealth  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
Though  there  be,  therefore,  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  the 
words,  nnlh  persecutions^  with  what  is  apparently  a  promise  of 
secular  enjoyments,  it  is  still  preferable  to  the  other  reading ; 
both  because  the  correction  is  a  mere  guess,  and  because  it  is 
less  reconcilable  than  this,  to  the  state  of  the  church  militant,  in 
any  period  we  are  yet  acquainted  with.  For  it  will  ever  hold, 
that  all  that  will  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus  shall,  in  some  shape 
or  other,  suffer  persecution.  And  to  reject,  on  mere  conjecture, 
because  of  a  difficulty,  real  or  apparent,  all  that  Mr.  has  addi- 
tional to  what  is  recorded  by  Mt.  and  L.  would  be  contrary  to 
all  the  rules  of  sound  criticism  ;  and  might  give  rise  to  a  freedom 
which  would  be  subversiveof  the  authority  of  Si^ripture  altogether. 
40.  /  cannot  give,  hk  e?-iv  if^tv  ^avxi.  Vul.  No>i  est  meum  dare 
vobis.  In  the  addition  of  vobis,  this  interpreter  is  almost  sin- 
gular, having  no  warrant  from  MSS.  and  being  followed  only  by 
the  Sax.  version.  It  is,  besides,  but  ill  adapted  to  the  words  in 
connection.  The  same  peculiarity  in  the  two  versions  occurs 
also  in  Mf.  xx.  23. 

42.   Those  zcho  are  accounted  the  princes,  d<  Sokuvt-i;  up^eiv. 
E.  T.    Thei/  which  are  accounted  to  rule.     The  Gr.  expression 
suitably  to  a  common   v\\-:-m   both   in  sacred,  and  in   classical 
authors,  may'  be  rendered  siraply,  as  though  it  were  ot  «f;t;ovTf? 


228  NOTES  ON  ch.  xi: 

the  princes  j  but  1  think  there  is,  here,  an  energy  in  the  word 
Seyjivyra^  as  denoting  those  whom  the  people  acknowledje,  and 
respect,  as  princes.  It  also  suits  the  sense  better  to  use  the  name 
princes  here,  than  the  verb  to  rule,  which  is  not  so  well  adapted 
to  the  preceding  participle,  accounted.  The  word  princes,  de- 
noting strictly  and  originally  no  more  than  chief  tnen,  it  may, 
not  improperly,  be  regarded  as  merely  a  matter  of  public  opinion, 
who  they  are  that  come  under  this  denomination.  But  we  can- 
not, with  propriety,  express  ourselves  in  the  same  doubtful  way 
of  those  who  actually  govern,  especially  when  they  govern,  as 
represented  here,  in  a  severe  and  arbitrary  manner. 

46.  Son  of  Timeus.  This  may  be  no  more  than  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  name,  for  so  Bartimeus  signifies;  in  which  case  the 
words  rar''  eri,  as  in  Abba,  father,  which  occurs  oftener  than 
once,  are  understood. 

48.  Charged  him  to  be  silent,  iTiTif-iMi  eujra  <*«  (nuTrvfrr,.  See 
notes  on  Mt.  xx.  31.  and  ch.  ix.  25- 


CHAPTER  XL 

• 
1.  As  far  as  Bethphage  and  Beth  an)/,  «?  '&r,6dixy/i  x,  'Sy.ixvtuv. 
B)!(<px^/tj  y^  are  not  in  the  Cam. :  nor  are  there  any  words  cortes- 
ponding  to  them  in  the  Vol.  and  the  Sax.  versions. 

10.  Immediately  after  ^««-<a««,  in  the  common  Gr.  copies,  we 
read  the  words,  fv  ettu^n  Kvpin,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord ;  but 
they  are  wanting  in  several  MSS.  some  of  them  of  principal  note, 
and  in  the  Vul.  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  Ara.  and  Sax.  versions.  Origan 
did  not  read  them.  And  they  are  rejected  by  Gro.  Mill,  and 
Ben.  Their  situation  between  ^ctTiXtia.  and  its  regimen,  m  -ttx- 
Tf  ^-  jjtwi/v,  gives  them  much  the  appearance  of  an  interpolation. 
Besides,  the  phrase,  t^-/,oy.'.i'^  ev  c^oumti  Kvsiov,  in  the  preceding 
verse,  accounts  very  naturally  for  the  inadvertency  of  giving 
ipy^ou-ay,  here  the  same  following.  There  is,  therefore  ,some  rea. 
son  for  rejecting  these  words,  but  none,  that  I  know,  for  reject- 
ing the  whole  clause, 

^  In  the  highest  heaven.     L.  ii.  14.  N. 

13.  For  the  Jig-harvest  zcas  not  yet,  a  yof  y.y  x.xip'^  irv%uy, 
E.  T.   For  the  time  of  Jigs  izas  not  yet.     Waving  the  different 


CH.  XI.  S.  MARK.  225 

hypotheses  that  have  been  adopted  for  explaining  this  expression, 
Dr.  Pearce  has,  from  several  passages  in  sacred  writ,  particular- 
ly Mt.  x\i.  34.  justly  observed,  that  by  the  time  of  any  kind  of 
fruit  or  grain,  is  meant  the  time  of  reaping  it.  This,  indeed, 
coincides  with  the  interpretation  which  a  reader  would  naturally 
give  it.  AVhat  can  the  time  of  any  fruit  be,  but  the  time  of  its 
full  maturity  ?  And  what  is  the  season  of  gathering,  but  the  time 
of  maturity  ?  But  figs  may  be  eaten  for  allaying  hunger,  before 
thev  be  fully  ripe;  ard  the  d'^-h ration,  that  the  season  of  figs 
was  not  \et  come,  cannot  be  (as  the  order  of  the  words,  in  the 
orijfinal.  would  lead  one  at  first  to  imagine)  the  reason  why  there 
Mas  nothing  but  leaves  on  the  tree  :  for  the  n^;  is  of  that  tribe  of 
TPgetabies,  wherein  the  fruit  appears  before  the  leaf.  But  if  the 
Avords,  y^  f/if«»  tit  Avrr.y^  ovcev  locsv  «  loj  <ft;A>j£,  be  read  as  a  pa- 
renthesis, the  aforesaid  declaration  will  be  the  reason  of  what 
immediatelv  preceded,  namely,  our  Lord's  looking  for  fruit  oa 
the  tree.  Th."  leaves  showed  that  the  fi^s  should  not  only  be 
formed,  but  well  ad\anced  :  and  the  season  of  reaping  being  not 
yet  come,  removed  all  suspicion  that  thev  had  been  gathered. 
Whf  II  both  circumstances  are  considered,  nothing  can  account 
for  its  want  of  fruit,  but  the  barrenness  of  the  tree.  If  the  words 
had  been,  evSi*  ivpiv  h  foj  oAyvfov?,  S  yx^  j;y  Kxipeg  trvKi)t^  he  found 
nothing  but  green  figs^  for  it  teas  not  the  time  of  ripe  fruit ;  we 
should  have  justly  concluded  that  the  latter  clause  was  meant,  as 
the  reason  of  what  is  affirmed  in  the  former  ;  but,  as  they  stand, 
they  do  not  admit  this  interpretation.  A  transposition,  entirely 
similar,  we  have  in  ch.  xvi.  3,  4.  The  idiom  of  modern  tongues, 
requiring  a  more  rigid  adherence  to  the  customary  arrangement, 
I  have  thought  it  reasonable  to  transpose  the  clauses.  And,  for 
removing  all  ambiguity,  I  have,  after  Bishop  Pearce  [See  his 
Answer  to  Woolston  on  the  miracles]  rendered  Kectpe?  c-vxm*  the 
Jiz-hurvesf^  (though  this  application  of  the  word  harvest  is 
rather  unusual)  than  by  a  phrase  so  indefinite  as  the  time  of  Jigs. 

15    The  temple.     Mt.  x\i.  1'2.  X. 

17.  Mj/  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  praj/er  for  all  nations^ 

house  shall  be  called.,  of  all  nations,  the  h'mse  of  praifer.     Our 
translators  have  followed  Be.  who  renders  the  passage,  as  if  the 

VOL.    IT.  ^29 


^30  NOTES  ON  CH.  XI" 

last  words  had  been  tlTro  vxirm  tov  i6mv.  Domum  meam  domum 
precationis  vocatum  iri  ab  omnibus  gentibus ;  and  is,  I  think 
the  only  La.  translator,  who,  by  inserting  the  preposition  ab^ 
has  perverted  the  sense.  He  has  been  copied,  as  usual,  by  the 
G.  F.  Ma  maison  sera  appellee  maison  cforaison  par  toutes 
nations.  This  is  an  error  of  the  same  sort  with  that  which  was 
observed  on  Mt.  v.  21.  See  the  note  on  that  verse.  The  court 
of  the  Gentiles,  a  part  of  ro  hpov^  the  temple.,  as  it  is  expressed  in 
this  passage,  was  particularly  destined  for  the  devout  of  all  na- 
tions, who  acknowledged  the  true  God,  though  they  had  not 
subjected  themselves  to  the  Mosaic  law,  and  were  accounted 
aliens.  The  proselytes  who  had  received  circumcision,  and  were 
by  consequence  subject  to  the  law,  were  on  the  same  footing  with 
native  Jews,  and  had  access  to  the  court  of  the  people.  Justly, 
therefore,  was  the  temple  styled  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  na- 
tions. The  error  in  the  common  version  is  here  the  more  extra- 
ordinary, as,  in  their  translation  of  Isaiah,  they  render  the  pas. 
sage  quoted /or  all  people. 

^  There  is  another  error,  in  the  common  version,  in  this 
passage,  which,  for  aught  I  know,  is  peculiar  to  it.  Oim^  is 
rendered  the  house.,  not  a  house,  as  it  ought  to  be.  This  differ, 
ence,  though  on  a  superficial  view  it  may  appear  inconsiderable. 
Is,  in  truth,  of  the  greatest  moment.  The  house  of  prayer  was 
the  utmost  that  a  Jew  could  have  said  of  the  temple  of  Jerusa- 
lem. To  represent  all  the  Gentiles,  most  of  whom  knew  nothing 
about  it,  and  the  rest,  at  the  furthest,  put  it  on  no  better  footing 
than  the  idol-temples  of  the  surrounding  nations,  as  using  a  style 
which  implied  that  it  was,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  place  of  all 
the  earth  appropriated  to  divine  worship,  is  both  misrepresenting 
the  fact,  and  misrepresenting  the  sacred  writers,  who  are  far  from 
advancing  any  thing  that  can  be  justly  so  interpreted. 

18.  For  they  dreaded  him,  c<paCovyTe  yxp  ctvm.  I  see  no  rea. 
son,  with  Pearce,  to  reject  the  uvrov,  on  so  slight  authority  as 
six  or  seven  MSS.  Their  fear  of  the  people,  mentioned  in  other 
passages,  so  far  from  being  inconsistent,  naturally  led  them  to 
dread  one  who  had  so  great  an  ascendancy  over  the  minds  of  the 
people,  who  exposed  the  hypocrisy  of  the  spiritual  guides  of  the 
age,  and  was  so  much  an  enemy  to  their  traditions  and  casuistry. 


CH.  XI. 


S.  MARK.  231 


21.   Which  thou  hast  devoted,  »'v  kxt^^xtu.  E.  T.  Which  thou 
€ursedst.     In  Eng.  the  word  cursed  is  not,  now,  so  commonly, 
nor,  I  think,  so  properly,  applied  to  inanimate  things.   Besides, 
that  acceptation  of  the  verb  to  curse,  to  which  our  ears  are  most 
familiarized,  associates,  in  our  minds,  the  idea  of  something,  at 
once  so  atrocious,  and  so  vulgar,  as  makes  one  dislike  exceed- 
ingly the  application  of  it,  to  a  solemn  act  of  our  Lord,  intend, 
ed  to  convey  instruction,  in  the  most  striking  manner,  on  two 
important  articles,  the  power  of  faith,  and  the  danger  of  unfruit- 
fulness  under  the  means  of  improvement.  Devoted,  though  some- 
times used  in  a  different  sense,  is  here  so  fixed  in  meaning,  by 
the  words  connected,  that  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  it ;  and  is 
surely  a  more  decent  term  than  cursed. 

22.   Have  faith  in  God,  iy^m  ots-zv  ©£».     That  is,  say  some, 
Have  a  strong  faith.     The  words  rendered  literally  are,  Have 
a  faith  of  God.     It  is  a  known  Hebraism,  to  subjoin  the  words 
of  God  to  a  substantive,  to  denote  great,  mighty,  excellent ;  and 
to  an  adjective,  as  the  sign  of  the  superlative.  In  support  of  this 
interpretation,  bishop  Pearce  has  produced  a  number  of  passa. 
ges,  universally  explained  in  this  manner.  The  context  here  will 
suit  either  explanation.    Though  this  is  a  point  on  which  no  one 
ought  to  be  decisive,  I  cannot  help,  upon  the  whole,  preferring 
the  common  version.     My  reasons  are  these:   1st,  I  find  that 
the  substantives  construed  with  ©e«,  when  it  signifies  great  or 
mighty  (for  it  is  only  with  these  we  are  here  concerned),  are 
names  either  of  real  substances,  or  of  outward  and  visible  effects. 
Of  the  first  kind  are,  prince,  mountain,  idnd,  cedar,  citif  ;  of 
the  second  are,  wrest/ing,  trembling,  sleep;  but  nowhere,  as  far 
as  I  can  discover,  do  we  find  any  abstract  quality,  such  as,  faith, 
hope,  love,  justice,  truth,  mercy,  used  in  this  manner.     When 
any  of  these  words  are  thus  construed  with  God,  he  is  confes- 
sedly  either  the  subject,  or  the  object,  of  the  affection  mentioned, 
2dly,  The  word  m?-i<;,  both  in  the  Acts,  and  in  the  Epistles,  is 
often  construed  with  the  genitive  of  the  object,  precisely  in  the 
same  manner  as  here.    Thus,  Acts  iii.  16.  !r/s-<5  t»  ovaitiotr:^  avra 
IS  faith  in  his  [Christ's]  name  ;  Rom.  iii.  22.  Trt^tg  Ino-a  XpiTH  is 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ.     See,  to  the  Same  purpose,  Rom.  iii.  26. 
-Gal.  ii.  16.  20.  iii.  22.  Philip,  iii.  9.  eAttj?  is  used  in  the  same  wa^ . 


2»  XOTF<  OX 


CB,  XII. 


1  Tbess.  i.  3.  As  these  come  mach  nearer  the  case  iu  hand,  thev 
aiv.  in  my  judirmeDr.  more  than  a  counterpoise  to  all  that  ha? 
been  adyanced  ia  favour  of  the  other  interpretation. 

CHAPTER  XI r. 

4.  They  zcounded  in  the  head  zcith  stones. >j?*?«>:^j:i--^  £E£?«- 
>-*^^«"x».  Vul.  In  capite  vul ne rarer unt.  Ajreeablv  to  this  Ter- 
sion,  the  Cam.  and  five  other  MSS-  omit  >.ii^c?J!Txmc.  The  Cop. 
and  Sax.  translations  follow  the  same  reading. 

14.  Is  it  lazcful  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar  or  not  ?  Shall  xce 
gize.  or  shall  zze  not  gize ?  i^iri  rr»5*»  Kms-xii  J«tT«,  t;  a:  Saue*^ 
»  it*  ittitei ;  Val.  Licet  dare  tributiim  Ccesari,  an  nan  dabimus  ? 
With  this  a^ree  the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  The  Cam.  omhs  the  whole 

clause  ;*iCc-7    T.    ur.    caiLct  ; 

19.  MlScs  hath  enacted.  M^r^c  eytirln.  E.  T.  Moses  xzrote. 
The  word  '/s*£i<i.  when  applied  to  legislators,  and  spoken  of 
laws,  or  standing^  rules,  is.  both  in  sacred  use.  and  in  classical. 
sancire.  to  enact. 

29.  The  Lord  is  our  God :  The  Lord  is  one.  K^fit:  i  0£«? 
^itjn'  Ki/sis£  ic  £«-<•  E.  T.  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord. 
The  words  are  a  quotation  from  Moses.  Deut.  ri.  4.  as  rendered 
by  the  SeTenry.  In  Heb.  thev  run  thus,  "O  ttt  irrrrj*  Trrr,  lite- 
rally in  Eng.  Jehovah  our  God  Jehovah  one.  In  such  sen. 
tences,  there  is  no  substantive  verb  in  Heb.  (as  in  European  lan- 
guages) to  connect  the  word-.  Their  juxtaposition  is  held  suffi. 
cient.  Sometimes  in  Gr.  and  La.  which  do  not  labour  under  the 
same  defect,  the  verb  is  omitted  as  unnecessary.  Now.  in  mv 
apprehension  (and  in  this  I  agree  with  Vitringa).  the  words 
quoted  ought  to  be  rendered  as  two  sentences  :  in  Deat.  thus. 
Jehovah  is  cur  God:  Jehovah  is  one  :  and  not  as  one  sentence. 
Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jekozah.  My  reasons  are  these:  1st. 
It  appears  to  have  been  the  purpose  of  their  great  legislator  to 
establish  among  the  {>eople  these  two  important  articles,  as  the 
foundation  of  that  religious  constitution  he  was  authorised  to 
give  them.  The  first  was.  that  the  God,  whom  they  were  to 
adore,  was  not  any  of  the  acknowledged  objects  of  worship  in 


CH.    XII, 


S.  MARK.  233 


tbe  nations  around  them,  and  was,  therefore,  to  be  distinguished 
among  them,  the  better  to  secure  them  against  seduction,  by  the 
peculiar  name  Jehovah,  by  which  alone  he  chose  to  be  invoked 
by  them.  The  second  was  the  unity  of  the  dirine  nature,  and 
consequently  that  no  pretended  divinity  (for  all  other  gods  were 
merely  pretended)  ought  to  be  associated  w  ith  the  only  true  God. 
or  share  with  him  in  their  adoration.  There  is  an  internal  pro- 
bability in  this  explanation,  arising  from  the  consideration  that 
these  were  notoriouslv  the  fundamental  articles  of  their  creed. 
2dly,  In  the  reply  of  the  Scribe,  v.  32.  which  was  approved  by 
our  Lord,  and  in  which  we  find,  as  It  were,  echoed  every  part  of 
the  answer  that  had  been  given  to  his  question,  there  are  two 
distinct  affirmations  with  which  he  begins  :  these  are,  There  is 
one  God;  and  there  is  only  one.  corresponding  to  The  Lord  is 
our  God,  and  the  Lord  is  one.  The  first  clause,  in  both  decla- 
rations, points  to  the  object  of  worship  ;  the  second,  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  excluding  all  others.  Accordingly,  the  radical  pre- 
cept relating  to  this  subject,  quoted  by  our  Lord,  Mt.  iv.  10. 
from  the  Sep.  is  exactly  suited  to  both  parts  of  this  declaration. 
Thou  shalt  zcorship  the  Lord  thy  God.  This  may  be  called  the 
positive  part  of  the  statute,  and  corresponds  to  the  article,  The 
Lord  is  our  God.  Thou  shalt  serve  him  only.  This  is  the  ne- 
gative part,  and  corresponds  to  the  article.  The  Lord  is  one. 
3dly,  Such  short  and  simple  sentences,  without  either  verb  or 
conjunction  to  unite  them  in  themselves,  or  connect  them  with 
one  another,  are  not  unfrequentin  the  sacred  language.  An  ex- 
ample, perfectly  similar,  we  have,  Esod.  xv.  3.  rrn'^r  cs  n\T  (or, 
as  we  read  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  rronSca  iiij  rpn-')  xcv  mm 
rightly  rendered  in  the  E.  T.  as  two  distinct  sentences.  TTic 
Lord  is  a  man  of  zcar  ;  the  Lord  is  his  name  :  by  Houbigant. 
Dominus  est  bellator  fortis  ;  dominus  est  nomen  ejus.  4thlv. 
It  is  unexampled  in  sacred  writ,  to  join  inN  as  an  adjective  to  a 
proper  name.  The  case  is  different,  when  it  is  affirmed  as  an  at- 
tribute, because  then  the  copula  or  substantive  verb  is  under- 
stood. For  though  the  Gr.  word  Kvpi^  be  an  appellative,  wc 
ought  to  remember  that,  in  this  passage,  it  supplies  the  place  of 
Jehovah.,  a  proper  name.  Xow  a  proper  name,  which  naturallv 
belongs  but  to  one,  does  not  admit  numeral  adjectives.  If  such 
an  adjective,  therefore,  be  subjoined  to  the  name,  it  ought  to  be 
considered  as  something  formally  predicated  of  it.  not  as  an  epi- 


234  NOTES  ON  en.  xii. 

thet  or  attendant  quality.  If  the  whole  purpose  of  the  quota- 
tion were  to  assert,  in  one  sentence,  the  unity  of  the  Godhead, 
the  only  natural  expression  in  Heb.  would  have  been  nnx  oiniSM 
M'nVst  nin»,  in  Gr.  Kvpi(^  h  0£®-  »>V<iy»  ©£05  'm  cs-t.  Jehovah,  or 
The  Lord,  our  God  is  one  God.  But,  as  it  stands,  if  it  had 
been  meant  for  one  simple  affirmation,  the  ej^ression  would  have 
been  both  unnatural  and  improper.  The  author  of  the  Vul. 
seems,  from  a  conviction  of  this,  to  have  rendered  the  words,  in 
defiance  of  the  authority  of  MSS.  Dens  unus  est.  In  Deut.  he 
says,  indeed,  Dominus  unus  est.  But  in  some  old  editions,  pre- 
vious to  the  revisal  and  corrections  of  either  Sixtus  V.  or  Cle- 
ment Vni.  the  reading  is,  as  in  Mr.  Deus  unus  est.  I  have  con. 
suited  two  old  editions  in  folio,  one  printed  at  Paris  1504,  the 
other  at  Lyons  1512,  both  of  which  read  in  this  manner*.  Some 
may  say,  and  it  is  the  only  objection  I  can  think  of,  that  though 
my  interpretation  might  suit  the  Heb.  of  Deut.  it  does  not  suit 
the  Gr.  of  the  Evangelist.  We  have  here  the  substantive  verb 
fs-i,  which,  as  it  is  used  only  once  in  the  end,  seems  to  connect 
the  whole  into  one  sentence.  I  answer,  that  it  is  not  uncommon 
in  the  penmen  of  the  N.  T.  to  use  the  copula  in  the  last  short 
sentence  or  member,  and  leave  it  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader's 
discernment  in  the  preceding.  Thus,  Mt.  xi.  30.  'o  (^vya  f^n 
XfiT^i^  «^  TO  <popTiov  f^a  £^x<Ppov  eri.  Here  every  body  admits,  that 
we  have  two  distinct  affirmations,  and  that  the  er/,  which  occurs 
only  in  the  end,   must  be  supplied  in  the  former  clause,  after 

^  Our  God,  0  ©£«?  vfim.  Three  MSS.  read  hf^m ;  one  reads 
ra.     Vul.  Deus  tuus. 

34.  Nobody  ventured  to  put  questions  to  him,  ovSe:i  eroXftoe  «t/- 
rov  eTt-eptoTnTcti.  E.  T.  No  man  durst  ask  him  any  question.  These 
words  convey  a  suggestion  of  some  stern  prohibition,  or  terrible 
menace,  denounced  by  our  Lord,  which  frightened  every  body 
from  further  attempts  this  way.  But  this  was  not  the  case.  The 
people  saw  how  completely  those  were  foiled  who  tried  to  ensnare 

*  Since  I  wrote  the  above,  I  have  seen  an  edition  of  the  Vul.  earlier  than 
either  of  these,  printed  at  Venice  1484,  in  which  also  the  expression  is  De- 
ns unus  est.  These  are  all  the  editions  of  that  Translation  of  an  older  date 
than  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  I  have  had  occasion  to  see. 


CH.  xii.  S.  MARK.  23d 

him  by  captious  questions ;  and  how  ill  those  succeeded,  who 
entered  into  disputation  with  him,  and  were  therefore  naturally 
led,  from  respect  to  a  superiority  so  great,  and  so  manifest,  to 
avoid  exposing  their  own  ignorance,  or  bad  intention.  This 
is  sufficiently  expressed  in  the  version.     J.  xxi.  12.     ^  N. 

40.  Punishment^  Kpift-x.  E.  T.  Damnation.  But  this  word, 
with  us,  is  confined  to  i\\e  punishment  of  hell ^  to  which  the  im- 
penitent will  be  hereafter  condemned.  I  think  it  unwarranta- 
ble, in  a  translator,  to  limit  the  words  of  the  sacred  penmen  to 
this  meaning,  when  neither  the  terms  used,  nor  any  thing  in  the 
context,  can  be  said  to  limit  them.  The  phrases  x^(5-<$  rr,(;  yutvxc, 
and  ximt®-  Kpts-ii,  literally,  the  punishment  of  hell,  and  eternal 
punishment,  are  the  only  terms  in  the  Gospels  which  may  be 
properly  rendered  damnation.  And  even  in  these  I  think  it  pre- 
ferable, for  an  obvious  reason,  to  use  the  periphrasis  of  the  sa- 
cred writer.  By  the  frequent,  unnecessary,  and  sometimes  cen- 
surable,  recourse  of  translators  to  the  terms,  damned,  damna- 
tion, damnable,  and  others  of  like  import,  an  asperity  is  given 
to  the  language  of  most  modern  translations  of  the  N.  T.  which 
the  original  evidently  has  not.     Ch.  xvi.  16.     ^  N, 

41.  The  treasury,  ra  yx^otpuXctMis.  This  name  seems  to  have 
been  given  to  those  chests  into  which  the  money  devoted  for  the 
use  of  the  temple  and  the  sacred  service  was  put.  The  first  ac- 
count we  have  of  such  a  repository,  is  in  2  Ki,  xii.  9.  But  the 
chest  mentioned  there  seems  to  have  been  intended  for  receiving 
only  the  money  brought  in  by  the  priests,  as  it  was  set  in  the 
court  of  the  priests,  near  the  altar,  a  place  to  which  they  only 
had  access  ;  whereas  the  treasury  here  meant,  was  accessible  to 
people  of  all  ranks  and  both  sexes,  as  we  learn  from  our  Lord's 
remark  on  the  gift  of  a  poor  widow.  It  must,  consequently,  have 
been  in  the  court  of  the  women,  beyond  which  they  were  not 
permitted  to  go.  Gazophylacium,  from  signifying  the  chest 
which  contained  the  treasure,  came  to  denote  the  place  in  the 
temple  where  the  chest  was  deposited.  We  find  our  Lord,  J. 
Tiii.  20.  teaching  in  the  treasury  ,•  that  is,  I  suppose,  in  that  side 
of  the  court  of  the  women  where  the  sacred  treasure  was  kept. 

42.  Two  mites,  which  make  a  farthing.  Disf5.  VIIL  P.  I.§  10. 


636  NOTES  ON  ch.  xiii. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

8.  Famines  and  commotions^  xiiMt  >^  xa,pa,xM-  Vul.  Fames. 
The  Cop.  Sax.  and  Eth.  read  as  the  Vul.  Kxt  raBoc^at  are  want- 
ing in  the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS. 

9,  To  bear  testimony  to  them.,  m  /AMprv^iev  xvToig.  E.  T.  For 
a  testimony  against  them.  Vul.  hi  testimonium  illis.  Thus 
also,  Mt.  X.  18.  fig  inM^T'jpiov  xvToii  !^  TO/;  sSveTi.  E.  T.  renders, 
For  a  testimony  against  them  and  the  Gentiles.  But,  in  Mt. 
xxiv.  14.  «?  [^xprvpiov  TFae-i  roii;  eSvia-t  is  translated,  For  a  witness 
unto  all  nations.  Th.li  is  evidently  the  most  natural  interpreta- 
tion, and  suits  the  usual  import  of  the  dative  case.  Nor  is  there 
aught  in  the  context  of  any  of  the  three  passages  that  would  lead 
one  to  interpret  it  differently  from  the  rest.  The  change,  conse- 
quently, appears  capricious.  In  one  place  indeed,  namely,  ch. 
vi.  11.  the  words  in  connection  sufficiently  warrant  the  change 
of  the  preposition.  But  that  the  construction  there  is  rather 
unusual,  may  be  concluded  from  the  parallel  passage,  L.  ix.  5. 
where  the  words  are,  en;  y.etprv^iev  ett'  («vtk5,  a  phrase  which  occurs 
in  no  other  part  of  the  Gospel.  Be.  was  the  first  translator  who, 
in  the  verse  under  review,  introduced  the  preposition  adversus. 

11.  Have  no  anxiety  beforehand.,  nor  premeditate  what  ye 
shall  speak^  ^j?  7rpofAspiu,vtiTi  n  AosAsjs-^Te,  i^y,^3  /tteAsTare.  Vul.  Nom 
lite  pra'cogitare  quid  loquamini.  The  latter  clause,  answering 
to  f/.tiS'i  //.iXiToiTi  is  wanting  here,  and  in  the  Cop.  and  Sax.  ver- 
sions.    So  it  is  also  in  the  Cam.  and  Four  other  MSS. 

"^  Foretold  by  the  prophet  Daniel^  to  pvjhv  uto  A(«v<j}A  m  'Trpntpvi- 
Tu.  This  clause  is  not  in  the  Cam.  and  three  other  MSS.  of  some 
note.  It  is  wanting  also  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions. 

32.  Or.  The  common  Gr.  copies  have  xxt;  but  if  we  judge 
from  the  value,  as  well  as  number,  of  MSS.  which  read  sj,  and 
from  the  support  this  reading  has  in  the  ancient  writers  and  ver- 
sions, we  cannot  hesitate  to  admit  it  as  genuine. 

^  Hour,  apm.  This  word  may  be  rendered  season.  Mt.  viii. 
13.  N. 

35.  In  the  evening — These  are  the  four  night  Avatches,  an. 
swering  with  us  to  the  hours  of  nine  and  twelve  at  night,  three 
and  six  in  the  morning. 


GH.  XIV.  S.  MARK.  237 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

3.  Of  SpiJcennrd^  vxp^a  ttitiiok.  VuL  Nardi  spicati.  Cri- 
tics have  been  divided  about  the  exact  import  of  this  term.  Some 
have  thought  that  it  has  arisen  from  the  La.  name  nardus  spica. 
tus,  the  lattor  part  of  which  denoting  the  species  of  the  plant, 
has,  by  some  accident,  been  corrupted  into  5r<r<Kjj?.  Others  con. 
sider  this  word  only  as  an  epithet,  expressive  of  the  purity  or 
fineness  of  the  balsam.  In  the  former  way  the  Vul.  translates 
it,  in  the  latter  the  Sy.  As  in  meaning,  however,  they  pretty 
much  coincide,  the  spikenard  being  accounted  the  most  precious 
\dnd  of  nard ;  it  seemed  better  to  make  no  alteration  on  the 
word  which  our  translators  have  adopted  from  the  Vul. 

^  She  broke  open  the  box,  c-wrpi-'pcca-x  to  xXxQx^-ftov.     E.  T.  She 
brake  the  box.     Some  late  translators,  not  seeing  any  necessity 
for  breaking  the  box,  in  order  to  get  out  the  liquor,  have  chosen 
to  say  shook.    Blackwall  (Sac.  Clas.  vol.  ii.  p.  ii.  ch.  3.)  thinks 
that  the  breaking  refers  to  the  parts  of  the  liquor,  which  would 
be  so  separated  by  shaking,  as  to  diffuse  their  fragrance  wider, 
and  flow  easier.  Syvr^/fwv,  I  acknowledge,  does  not  always  mean 
to  break  ;  perhaps  oftner  to  bruise.     ^wr^i'eeirB-ott,  however,  al- 
ways implies  that  there  is  violence,  and  that  the  thing  spoken  of 
has  sustained  damage.     Now  it  is  evident,  that  it  is  net  the  li- 
quor to  which  the  verb  is  applied,  but  the  box.  For  though,  by 
a  common  figure,  the  containing  for  the  contaiced,  the  box  might 
be  used  to  denote  the  liquor  ;  these  two  are  here  so  contradis- 
tinguished, that  the  trope  can  hardly  have  place.     The  historian 
had  told  us,  that  the  woman  had  «A«i?os5-f«v  y^v^a  vxp^a  7ri?-ixf}i  tto- 
XvreXH<;.     After  naming  the  box,  the  liquor  is  specified.    To  this, 
as  being  last  mentioned,  the  participle  o-vvr^i-^ao-x  might  refer,  if 
nothing  were  subjoined  ;  but  the  repetition  of  xXx^as^ov  after  o-w- 
rpi-'l'uTx,  ought,  by  the  syntactic  order,  expressly  to  exclude  that 
interpretation  ;  as  it  could  be  intended  only  to  prevent  a  wrong 
reference  to  f^vpov.     The  a-vvrpitpuTx,  therefore,  whatever  it  de- 
notes, must  regularly  refer  to  the  box.     This,  say  they,  is  not 
the  usual  method  of  taking  out  the  liquor  ;  but  it  may  be  some- 
times a  necessary  method.    Nor  does  it  follow,  as  a  consequence 
of  breaking  the  box,  that  the  liquor  must  be  lost.     The  effect 
would  depend  entirely  on  the  form. of  the  vessel,  and  the  manner 

VOL.  IV.  SO 


^38  NOTES  ON  CH.  xiv. 

of  breaking  It.  We  may  strike  off  the  neck  of  a  bottle  or  flag- 
gon,  without  spilling  the  liquor.  I  have,  however,  chosen  the 
words  broke  open,  as  sufficiently  denoting  that  it  required  an 
uncommon  effort  to  bring  out  the  contents,  which  is  all  that  the 
word  here  necessarily  implies.  And  tt  is  a  circumstance  that 
ought  not  to  be  altogether  overlooked,  being  an  additional  evi- 
dence of  the  woman's  zeal  for  doing  honour  to  her  Lord.  That 
the  term  ought  not  to  be  rendered  sJiook,  is  to  me  evident.  I 
know  no  example  of  it  in  this  meaning  in  any  author,  sacred  or 
profane.  Verbs  denoting  to  shake,  frequently  occur  in  scrip- 
ture.    But  the  word  is  never  trvyroiQa,  but  nv^o-a-u,  o-^iw,  a-xXevu, 

14.  The  guest-chamber ,  ro  xxrxXvfAx.     L.  ii.  7.     ^  N. 

1 5.  Furnished,  ff^^^fvav.  I  have  followed  the  E.  T.  in  ren- 
dering the  Gr.  word  by  a  general  term.  To  make  a  stricter  in-, 
terpretation  intelligible  to  ordinary  readers,  would  require  more 
circumlocution  than  it  would  be  proper  to  introduce  into  so 
simple  a  narrative.  The  Eng.  word,  which  comes  nearest  the 
import  of  the  Gr.  is  carpeted.  But  when  this  term  is  used,  as 
here,  of  a  dining-room,  it  is  not  meant  (as  without  an  explana- 
tion would  occur  to  us)  anly  of  the  floor,  but  of  the  couches  on 
which  the  guests  reclined  at  meals.  On  these  they  were  wont, 
for  the  sake  both  of  neatness  and  of  conveniency,  to  spread  a 
coverlet  or  carpet.  As  this  wis  commonly  the  last  thing  they 
did  in  dressing  the  room,  it  may  not  improperly  be  employed  t©- 
denote  the  whole. 

22.  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,  XctQere,  (pxyere,  thto  ss-i  ro  tuvm 
ftsti.  Vul.  Sumite,  hoc  est  corpus  meum.  The  same  defect  is 
in  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  the  Ara.  the  Sax.  and  the  Eth.  versions. 
The  Al.  and  some  other  noted  MSS.  omit  (pxytTe. 

30.  Even  thou.  Though,  in  the  common  Gr.  we  have  not  the 
pronoun  o-v  after  ot«,  it  is  found  in  so  great  a  number  of  MSS, 
many  of  them  of  principal  note,  in  so  many  ancient  versions,  fa., 
thers,  and  early  editions,  that  it  has  been  generally  received  by 
critics.  That  o-y  is  emphatical  in  this  place  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Peter's  solemn  declaration  ended  with  these  words,  «>iA'  ovk  lyu^ 
Our  Lord's  words  on  c-v  stand  directly  opposed  to  them.  It  may 
be  added,  that  the  pronoun,  in  the  learned  languages,  being  in 
such  cases  unnecessary  for  expressing  the  sense,  because  its  power 


fiH.  XIV.  S.  MARK.  2S9 

is  included  in  the  verb,  is  hardly  ever  mentioned  but  with  an 
emphasis,  which  can  rarely  be  transfused  into  modern  tongues 
without  the  aid  of  some  particle,  as  here  of  the  adverb  even. 

41.  All  is  over,  «^5%«.  E.  T.  It  is  enough.  This  expression 
is  here  both  indefinite  and  obscure.  L.  Cl.'s  version  is  nearer 
the  point,  Qest  une  affaire  faite,  or  An.  ^Tis  done.  The  inten- 
tion  was  manifestly  to  signify  that  the  time  wherein  they  might 
have  been  of  use  to  him  by  their  counsel  and  comfort,  was  now 
lost ;  and  that  he  was  in  a  manner  already  in  the  bands  of  his 
enemies. 

43.   Clubs.  L.  xxii.  52.  N. 

51.    Who  had  only  a  linen  cloth  wrapt  about  his  body.,  -x-epiSe- 
Sxm^lc,  ^i-v^o.cc  ,7r,  yvf^vcv.    E.  T.  Having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about 
his  naked  body.    Bp.  Pearce  supposes  this  to  have  been  a  tunic, 
or  vestcoat,  the  garment  worn  next  the  skin  (for  shirts,  as  neces- 
sary as  we  imagine  them,  appear  to  be  of  a  later  date,  unless  we 
give  that  name  to  a  linen  tunic)  :  but  the  words  in  connection, 
^ipi^eS>.vf^em  e^i  yvf^^ov,  lead  us  to  think  that  this  was  a  loose 
cloth  cast  carelessly  about  him.  The  historian  would  never  have 
added  em  vvH-^ov,  speaking  of  the  tunic,  or,  as  we  commonly  ren. 
der  it,  coat,  which  was  always  e-ri  yv^tvov,  close  to  the  body.    By 
this,  on  the  contrary,  he  signifies  that  the  man  had  on  no  tunic, 
and  was  consequently  obliged  to  make  his  escape  naked,  when 
they  pulled  off  his  wrapper.     Besides,  a  man's  appearing  only 
in  his  tunic  was  nothing  extraordinary,  and  would   never  have 
excited  the  attention  of  the  soldiers.     The  common  people,   on 
ordinary  occasions,  or  when  employed  in  manual  labour,  seldom 
appeared  otherwise.     What  our  Lord  says,  ch.  xiii.  16.  Let  not 
him  who  shall  be  in  the  field  turn  back  to  fetch  his  mantle,  is  an 
evidence  of  this;  for  these  two,  the  tunic  and  the  mantle,  com. 
pleted  their  dress. 

2  The  soldiers,  ii  nccnT^i.  E.  T.  The  young  men.  A  com- 
mon denomination  for  soldiers  among  the  Greeks.  Had  the 
evangelist  said  notnry^i  T«vf?,  or  simply  ve«v(5-x^<,  I  should  have 
rendered  Myoung  men.  The  definite  expression  i>i  nxno-Kot  points 
to  a  known  part  of  the  company,  which  could  be  no  other  than 
the  soldiers.  Though  this  incident,  recorded  by  Mr.  may  not 
appear  of  great  moment,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  one  of  those  cir- 
cumstances we  call  picturesque,  which,  though  in  a  manner  nn. 


240  ,  NOTES  ON  ch.  xiv 

connected  with  the  story,  enlivens  the  narrative,  and  adds  to  its 
credibility.  It  must  have  been  late  in  the  night,  when  (as  has 
been  very  probably  conjectured)  some  young  man,  whose  house 
lay  near  the  garden,  being  roused  out  of  sleep  by  the  noise  of 
the  soldiers  and  armed  retinue  passing  by,  got  vp,  stimulated  by 
curiosity,  wrapt  himself  (as  Casaubon  supposes)  in  the  cloth  in 
•which  he  had  been  sleeping,  and  ran  after  them.  This  is  such  an 
incident  as  is  very  likely  to  have  happened,  but  most  unlikely  to 
have  been  invented.  It  is  proper  to  add  that  oi  viccnc-Kat  are  want- 
ing in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  with  which  agree  the  Vul 
Sy.  Cop.  Ara.  and  Sax.  versions. 

53.  All  the  chief  priests,  Travnc,  hi  ce.Px,tif>»i'  Vul.  Omnes  sneer, 
dotes.  The  interpreter  seems  to  have  read  l^pm.  But  this  read- 
ing is  not  warranted  hy  any  MS.  or  version,  except  the  Sax. 

56.  Were  insufficient,  ta-ca  »«  jjo-stv.  E.  T.  Agreed  not  toge-- 
ther.  Vul.  Convenientia  testimonia  non  erant.  Between  these 
two  ways  of  rendering  this  passage,  translators  have  been  divid- 
ed. Er.  and  Zu.  are  the  only  La.  translators  I  have  seen  who 
agree  with  that  here  given,  nee  erant  satis  idoitea.  The  Fr.  trans- 
lations also  of  p.  R.  L.  Cl.  and  Beau,  the  Eng.  An.  and  Wes. 
concur  with  mine.  On  a  doubtful  point,  where  the  words  appear 
susceptible  of  either  interpretation,  one  ought  to  be  determined 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Now  there  is  nothing,  in  the 
whole  narrative,  that  insinuates  the  smallest  discrepancy  among 
the  witnesses.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  Gospels,  the  testimony 
specified  is  mentioned  as  given  by  all  the  witnesses.  The  differ- 
ences in  Mt.  and  Mr.  one  saying,  /  will  rebuild,  another,  1  can 
rebuild  ;  one  adding,  made  with  hands,  another  omitting  it,  not 
only  are  of  no  moment  in  themselves,  but  are  manifestly  differ- 
ences in  the  reports  of  the  evangelists,  not  in  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses;  nor  are  they  greater  than  those  which  occur  in  most 
other  facts  related  from  memory.  What  therefore  perplexed  the 
pontiffs  and  the  scribes,  was  that,  admitting  all  that  was  attest- 
ed, it  did  not  amount  to  what  could  be  accounted  a  capital  crime. 
This  made  the  high-priest  think  of  extorting  from  our  Lord's 
mouth,  a  confession  which  might  supply  the  defect  of  evidence. 
This  expedient  succeeded  to  their  wish.  Jesus,  though  not  out- 
witted by  their  subtilty,  was  noway  disposed  to  decline  suffer- 
ing, and,  therefore,  readily  supplied  them  with  the  pretext  they 
wanted. 


cii.  XIV.  S.  MARK.  241 

59.  Defective.     See  the  last  note. 

61.  The  Son  of  the  blessed  One^  h  vm  rev  evMytirov.  Vul. 
Filius  Dei  benedicti.  In  the  Al.  and  two  other  MSS.  we  read 
€)eov  rov  fvXoyyiTov.  But  it  is  entirely  suitable  to  the  Heb.  idiom, 
to  employ  the  adjective  ivMytiroi;^  without  the  noun,  as  a  distin. 
guishing  appellation  of  God. 

70.  The  clause  >c^  «  XaXiy^  o-ov  0/4,01x^(1  is  wanting  in  the  Cam. 
and  three  other  MSS.  with  which  agree  the  Vul.  Cop.  and  Sax. 
versions. 

72.  Rejleciing  thereon^  he  zcepi,  e7ri€cc>Mv  acXxie.  E.  T.  IVhen 
he  thought  thereon:,  he  tcept.  There  are  not  many  words  in 
Scripture  which  have  undergone  more  interpretations  than  this 
term,  e7n(^xMjv.  The  Vul.  perhaps  from  a  ditferent  reading,  fol- 
lowed by  Er.  Za.  Cas.  and  Cal.  says,  Ccepitjlere.  In  this  also 
agree  the  Sy.  the  Sax.  and  the  Go.  versions.  Ar.  Separans  se 
flevit.  Be.  Quum  se  proripuisset^Jlevit.  D'lo.  Si  mise  a  pian- 
gere.  G.  F.  after  Be.  S^estantjeite  hors  il  pleura.  P.  R.  Beau, 
and  L.  Cl.  as  Dio.  II  se  mit  a  pleurer.  Hey.  He  burst  into 
tears.  Almost  all  our  other  Eng.  versions  of  this  century,  An. 
Dod.  Wes.  Wor.  Wy.  have  it.  He  covered  his  head,  or  his  face, 
and  wept.  Schmidius  and  Raphelius  have,  warmly,  but  not,  in 
my  judgment,  successfully,  defended  Be.'s  version,  making  eTn- 
Qci>iXei\i  to  mean,  se  foras  proripere  sive  ejicere,  to  rush  out. 
Eisner  has  clearly  shown,  that  the  examples  produced  in  support 
of  this  interpretation,  conclude  nothing;  and  that  the  word,  as 
its  etymology  suggests,  denotes,  more  properly,  to  rush  in,  than 
to  rush  out.  Accordingly,  when  it  is  construed  with  a  preposi. 
tion,  the  preposition  is  always  «?,  or  ctti,  never  e|  or  xtto.  He, 
therefore,  prefers  an  explanation  which  had  been  first  given  by 
The.  and  afterwards  defended  by  Salmasius,  and  others  :  Having 
covered  his  head,  he  wept.  Yet  the  Gr.  commentator  does  not 
give  this  as  the  certain  meaning  of  the  %vord  ;  but  mentions  two 
interpretations,  leaving  it  to  the  reader  to  make  his  choice.  Ilis 
words  are,  e7rtSci>Mv,  yct^  <^itiriv,  ckP^ccic,  tst'  eriv,  c7nKxXv4^ciyc£v(^  t>,? 
x;}^aAj)v,  J}  xvTt  m,  x^^xf^cev®^  f^srx  c-(po^^or7ir(^.  But  has  any  au- 
thority been  produced  for  rendering  iVii^x>o^Hv,  by  itself,  to  cover 
the  head  ?  The  authority  of  The.  himself,  a  writer  of  the  eleventh 
century,  especially  on  a  point  of  which  he  is  evidently  doubtful. 
wilI.i)ot  go  far.  Pains  have  been  taken  to  evinco  that  the  Greeks 


242  NOTES  ON  ch.  xrr. . 

and  Romans  (for  notliing,  if  I  remember  right,  has  been  affirmed 
of  tlie  Jews)  had  such  a  custom  ;  but  not  that  it  was  ever  express- 
ed by  the  single  word  stti^xMiv,  It  is  natural  in  a  man  who 
•weeps,  to  endeavour  to  hide  his  face;  not  so  much  to  conceal  his 
emotion,  as  to  conceal  the  effect  of  it,  the  distortion  it  brings 
upon  his  countenance.  But  the  matter  of  consequence  to  Peter, 
was  to  conceal  his  emotion  altogether.  Now,  he  could  not  have 
taken  a  more  effectual  method  of  publishing  it  to  all  around  him, 
than  by  muifling  up  his  head  in  his  mantle.  This  could  not  fail 
to  attract  the  attention  of  many  who  had  no  opportunity  of  ob. 
serviiig  the  change  on  his  features.  I  consider  the  version  of  this 
■word  In  Dio  Beau,  and  L.  Cl.  as  made  from  the  Vul.  or  the 
Cam  the  only  Gr.  copy  which  reads  a^^xro  x-Xxmi.  Hey.'s  seems 
to  be  a  free  version  of  The. 's,  oe.o'^nu.iv'^  (jli-tu.  o-paS"^or}}T(^,  enXxis. 
In  regard  to  what  appears  to  have  been  the  oldest  manner  of 
translating  the  word  eotc^Aw,  he  began;  I  should,  with  Palairet, 
have  no  objection  to  it,  had  the  words  been  iTrs^aX?  KXxistv^  and 
not  fTTiSaXm  exXccte;  for,  though  no  phrase  in  Scripture  is  more 
common,  than  he  began  to  clo^  for  he  did ;  we  do  not  find  a  single 
instance  in  which  the  first  verb  is  expressed  by  the  participle, 
and  the  second  by  the  indicative  mood  (I  might  add,  or  in  which 
e7rt^xX\-(v  is  used  for  to  begin);  now  the  form,  in  idiomatic 
phrases,  must  beearefuUy  observed,  for  they  hardly  ever  convey 
the  same  sense,  when  differently  construed.  Simon  of  the  Ora. 
tory,  after  Gro.  makes  this  participle  equivalent  to  the  Ileb. 
1DV  addens.  But  it  is  remarkable,  that  though  the  verb  eTn'^ctWa 
occurs  very  often  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  they  have  not 
once  used  it  in  translating  the  Heb.  ids  which  is  also  a  very  com. 
mon  verb.  Palairet  follows  Ham.  who  has  given  a  version  which 
differs  from  all  the  preceding.  He  looked  upon  him  [Jesus],  and 
wept.  But  our  former  question  recurs,  Where  do  we  find  ett/- 
QxXXoi  without  any  addition,  used  in  this  sense  ?  Not  one  quota- 
tion where  the  verb  is  not  followed  by  c^pSaXf^i,  i9%^«?,  or  of^».xTct, 
has  been  brought  in  support  of  this  meaning.  The  meanings 
would  be  endless  which  might  be  given  it,  should  we  form  an 
interpretation  from  every  word  that  may  be  construed  with  e-x-c 
QxXXu.  After  weighing,  impartially,  the  above  and  other  expla- 
nations, I  think,  with  Wet.  that  the  sense  exhibited  by  the  E. 
T.  is  the  most  probable.  That  there  is  an  ellipsis  in  the  words, 
is  undeniable.     Now,  we  can  never  plead  use  in  favour  of  a  par- 


:h.  XV. 


S-  MARK.  243 


ticular  signification  of  an  elliptic  term,  but  when  we  can  show 
that  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  where  there  is  the  same 

ellipsis.  To  say  s7rt^ot?0\.w  means  to  look  upon^  because  tTnQoiX- 
A'/»  o(p6otXiA.ii<;  has  that  meaning  ;  or  that  it  signifies  to  cover  the 
face,  because  /3«AAf<»  <p»^ii  et'  of4.f^ciTuv  has  that  signification,  ap- 
pears to  me  so  extraordinary  a  mode  of  reasoning,  that  1  am  sur- 
prised to  find  critics  of  undoubted  learning  and  discernment 
adopting  it.  If  I  should  produce  examples  of  £7riQ»xx<^v  T«y  vyv^ 
or  Tjjv  S'tctyotxv,  as  signifying  to  think  of  a  thing,  to  reflect  upon  it, 
than  which  nothing  is  easier  ;  I  should  give  full  as  much  proba- 
bility to  this  signification  of  the  word  f5r(?«AA«»,  when  alone,  as 
has  been  given  by  any  quotations  I  have  yet  seen,  to  the  most 
plausible  of  the  meanings  above  mentioned.  But  more  can  be 
said  here.  The  verb  by  itself  is  explained  by  Phavorinus,  as  ad- 
mitting this  interpretation.  Ea-^fotAA^  at  n^  »e;jjM.«T<  «  f^y».  jjyyy 
;3»f<ls<wftevai?  x^  fTTLTv^u);  vaei,  o  >^  eTst^oXwi;  <pot,f*.£v.  Suidas  explains 
iTfiQoX'^  by  inoicA.  And  of  the  word  used  singly  in  this  acceptation. 
Wet.  has  produced  clear  examples  from  Polybius,  Theophrastus, 
Plutarch,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Diogenes  Laertius,  and  several 
others,  to  which  I  refer  the  learned  reader  ;  and  shall  only  add, 
that  if  these  authorities  do  not  put  the  matter  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, they,  at  least,  give  it  a  greater  probability  than  has  been 
yet  given  to  any  of  the  otlier  hypotheses. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

5.  Ansizered  no  more^  hksti  >^hv  xTreK^iSti.  E.  T.  Yet  answ<'red 
nothing.  But  this  implies  that  he  had  answered  nothing  to  the 
former  question  ;  the  reverse  of  which  is  the  fact,  as  apjjears,  v. 
2.  and  is  justly  observed  by  bishop  Pearce.  All  the  La.  trans- 
lators say  rightly.  Nihil  amplius  respondit,  or  what  is  manifest- 
ly equivalent.  All  the  foreign  translations,  I  have  seen,  give 
the  same  sense.  Yet,  to  show  how  diflicult  it  is  to  preserve  aa 
uniform  attention,  and  how  liable,  at  times,  even  judicious  per- 
sons are  to  run  blindfold  into  the  errors  of  their  predecessors,  it 
may  be  observed,  that  Wes.  is  the  only  modern  Eng.  translatoF 
who  has  escaped  a  blunder,  not  more  repugnant  to  the  fact,  as  re- 
corded in  the  verses  immediately  preceding,  than  contradictory  to 
(he  import  of  the  Gr.  expression  here  used.  His  version  is,  jin. 
izsered  nothing  any  more.  The  rest,  without  exception,  say,  S.till 


244  NOTES  ON  ch.  xv. 

answered  nothing,  or  words  to  that  purpose.    Yet,  in  the  G.  E. 
the  sense  was  truly  exhibited,  Answered  no  more  at  all. 

7.  Who  in  their  sedition  had  committed  murder,  iirtvn  ck  tv 
Txs-et  (povov  TTeTToiiiJcei'rciv.  Vul.  Qui  in  seditione  fecerut  homicidium\ 
No  MS.  authorizes  this  rendering. 

8.  With  clamour  the  multitude  demanded,  AvoiSotjo-xi  o  o;(jA(^ 
;jf|(»To  enTuc-S-ai.  Vul.  CH7n  ascendisset  turba  ccepit  rogare.  Ac. 
cordingly  the  Vat.  MS.  has  uvetScci  for  etvocSotis-xg.  Agreeable  to 
which  are  also  (he  Cop.  and  Eth.  versions.  The  Cam.  reads 
«»«o«?  oA®^,  and  is  followed  by  the  Go.  but  not  by  the  Sax.  which 
has  nothing  answering  to  the  first  clause,  Cmn  ascendisset,  but 
is,  iu  what  follows,  conformable  to  the  Vul. 

12.  What  then  rcould  ye  have  me  do  with  him  whom  ye  call 
king  of  the  Jeiis  ?  T/  av  S-eXsre  Tron^s-a  ov  P^syerc  ^tttrtXeu,  tuv  laScttm ; 
Vul.  Quid  ergo  vultis  faciam  regi  Judceorum?  But  in  this 
omission  the  Vul.  is  singular.  There  is  no  Gr.  MS.  known  as 
yet,  which  has  not  o'v  Xeyire :  no  version,  except  the  Sax.  which 
does  not  translate  it. 

25.  Nailed  him  to  the  cross,  er£<vf<y7-<«»  avrav.  E.  T.  Crucified 
him.  The  Eng.  verb,  to  crucify,  denotes,  properly,  to  put  to 
death  by  nailing  to  the  cross.  The  word  ^xv^ow,  here,  means  no 
more  than  to  fasten  to  the  cross  with  nails.  In  strict  propriety, 
we  should  not  say  a  man  cried  out  after  he  was  crucified,  but 
after  he  was  nailed  to  the  cross. 

2  The  third  hour.     J.  xix.  14.  N. 

34.  Eloi,  EXmi.  This  is  the  Sy.  as  well  as  the  Heb.  word  for 
my  God.  See  J.  xx.  17.  in  the  Sy.  version.  It  is  there  pro- 
nounced Elohi :  but  the  aspiration  must  be  dropt,  when  written 
in  Gr.  letters,  as  it  suits  not  the  analogy  of  the  Gr.  language,  to 
admit  it  in  the  middle,  or  at  the  end,  of  a  word.  For  this  rea- 
son  they  say  Abraam,  not  Abraham  i  Judas,  not  Judah. 

42.  When  it  was  evening,  j^  yi^tj  o-^txi  yevaf^ivin.  The  word 
answering  to  evening  is  used  with  some  latitude  in  Scripture. 
The  Jews  spoke  of  two  evenings,  Mt.  xiv.  23.  N.  It  is  proba- 
bly the  former  of  these  that  is  meant  here,  and  Mt.  xxvii.  57. 
for  at  six  the  preparation  ended,  and  the  Sabbath  began,  when 
they  durst  no  longer  be  so  employed. 

43.  Senator.     B^Aeutj??.     L,  xxiii.  30.  N, 


ca.  XVI.  S.  MARK.  245 

44.  Pilate,  amazed  that  he  teas  so  soon  dead,  o  h  n/A«T®* 
'6e6viuM<s-£v,  «  7!$i]  ri$vi]x.c.  E.  T.  And  Pilate  marvelled  if  he  were 
alreadj/  dead.  Raphelitrs,  with  whom  agrees  bishop  Pearce,  has 
shown,  by  examples  from  Xenophon  and  Eusebius,  that  the  con- 
junction «  is,  in  some  cases,  properly  translated  that.  We  have 
a  strong  evidence  that  this  is  the  meaning  here,  from  the  question 
put  to  the  centurion,  zchether  Jesus  had  been  dead,  "TrxXxi,  any 
time,  not  '^^•^,  alreadij.  That  there  are  two  MSS.  which  read  ij^^y 
is,  perhaps,  not  worth  mentioning. 

CHAPTER  XVr. 

2.  About  snn.rise,  «i.-tT-«A:<vT3>-r»  jj'a/s.  E.  T.  At  the  rising  of 
the  sun.  Vul.  Oitujam  sole.  This  expresses  too  much  ;  for  let  it 
be  observed,  t'aat  it  is  not  the  preterperfect  participle  that  is  here 
used  by  the  Evangelist,  but  an  aorist.  Nor  is  there  a  word  in 
tlie  Gr.  (except  in  a  very  few  copies)  nor  in  any  other  ancient 
version,  answering  to  Jam  in  the  La.  The  E.  T.  seems,  in  this 
place,  to  follow  the  Cam.  which  reads  civotTtXMvr(^  in  the  present. 
But  this  reading  is  peculiar  to  that  copy. 

8.  Getting  out,Jled,  t^sP^Sac-xi  rayju  tcpvyov.  E.  T.  JVent  out 
quickly,  and  Jled.  But  the  word  tx^u  is  wanting  in  a  great  num- 
ber of  MSS.  some  of  them  of  principal  note,  in  several  of  the 
best  editions,  and  ancient  versions,  particularly  the  Vul.  and 
both  the  Sy.     It  is  also  rejected  by  Mill  and  Wet. 

16.  lie  who  shall  believe,  a  TriTeva-xi.  E.  T.  He  who  believeth. 
The  Gr.  aorists  have  not  always  the  power  of  the  preterite  ;  but, 
agreeably  to  the  import  of  the  name,  are  frequently  indefinite  in 
regard  to  time.  Here  they  are  better  rendered  by  the  present, 
as  in  the  E.  T.  than  by  the  past;  the  present,  with  us,  being  offen 
used  indefinitely.  Had  the  words  immediately  preceding  related 
to  a  judgment  to  come,  the  most  proper  tense,  here,  in  Eng.  for 
expressing  the  Gr.  aorist,  would  have  been  the  future  perfect; 
that  is,  a  future  which  is  past,  in  respect  of  another  future  refer- 
red to.  He  zcho  shall  have  believed,  shall  be  saved.  In  this 
manner  all  the  La.  translators,  except  Ar.  have  expressed  it : 
Qui  crediderif.  But,  as  the  words  immediately  preceding 
are  an  order  to  the  apostles,  with  which  the  words  of  this  pas- 
sage are  connected,  as  regarding  what  is  necessarily  conge* 
vor.  IV.  o!. 


246  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XVf. 


quent  on  thiB  execution  of  that  order  (for  of  necessity  they  would 
be  either  believed  or  disbelieved),  the  time  is,  in  our  idiom,  best 
expressed  by  a  simple  future.  Though  the  future  perfect  could 
not  be  accounted  improper,  it  is  so  complex  [_He  ztho  shall  have 
believed^  and  shall  have  been  baptized^  that,  unless  where  per- 
spicuity renders  it  necessary,  it  is  better  to  avoid  it.  The  later 
Fr.  translators  (though  that  tense  be,  in  their  language,  a  degree 
simpler  than  in  ours)  take  this  method.  P.  R.  Sa.  and  Si.  though 
translating  from  the  Vul.  and  Beau,  say  Cclai  qui  croira,  not 
qui  aura  cru. 

2  lie  zcho  shall  believe-^he  xcho  vcillnot  believe^  o  vi'revo-ui — 
0  a.TTi^-^Tot.i.  E.  T.  He  that  believeth — he  that  believeth  not.  The 
change  of  the  future  from  shall  to  zoill^  may,  to  a  superficial 
viewr,  appear  capricious  ;  but  I  imagine  the  idiom  of  the  lan- 
guage requires  this  distinction,  between  a  positive  and  a  nega- 
tive condition.  It  is  accordingly  expressed  in  the  same  manner 
in  the  G.  E.  A  sovereign  might  properly  say  to  his  minister, 
'  Publish,  in  my  name^  this  edict  to  the  people ;  if  they  shall 
'  obey  it,  they  shall  be  rewarded,  but  if  they  will  not  obey,  they 
'  shall  be  punished.'  In  the  former  part  of  th«  declaration,  it  is 
not  the  will  that  is  required,  so  much  as  the  performance :  in 
the  latter  part,  a  threat  is  annexed  to  the  non-performance, 
merely  on  account  of  the  obstinacy,  that  is,  pravity,  of  will,  by 
which  it  is  occasioned.  This  distinction  particularly  suits  the 
the  nature  of  the  present  case.  The  belief  that  results  not  from^ 
evidence,  but  from  an  inclination  to  believe,  is  not  ^ty\e6.  faith, 
so  properly  as  credulity^  which  is  always  accounted  an  extreme. 
Nor  is  that  unbelief.,  or  even  disbeliefs  criminal,  that  is  not  just- 
ly imputable  to  a  disinclination  to  believe,  in  spite  of  evidence, 
which  is  termed  incredulity.,  and  is  as  much  an  extreme  as  the 
other.  It  is  required,  not  that  our  will  operate  in  producing 
belief  (ample  evidence  is  afforded  for  this  purpose,  as  mentioned 
in  the  two  subsequent  verses),  but  that  our  will  do  not  operate 
in  a  contrary  direction,  to  prevent  or  obstruct  our  believing. 
God  alone  gives  light,  he  requires  of  us  only  that  we  do  not  shut 
our  eyes  against  it.  It  may  be  thought  an  objection  to  this  ex- 
planation, that  it  would  imply,  that  there  is  a  demerit  in  the  un- 
belief that  is  punishable,  at  the  same  time  that  there  is  no  merit 
in  the  faith  that  is  to  be  rewarded.  This  is  doubtless  the  case. 
There  is  no  positive  merit  in  faith;  and  if,  when  compared  with 


CH.  XTi,  S.  MARK.  247 

infidelity,  there  may  be  ascribed  to  it  a  sort  of  negative  merit, 
the  term  is  evidently  used  in  a  sense  not  strictly  proper.  But 
this  is  no  objection  to  the  explanation  given  above.  These  con- 
traries do  not  stand  on  a  footing  entirely  similar.  Death,  we 
know,  is  the  v\ages  of  sin ;  but  eternal  life,  which  is  the  same 
with  salvation,  is  the  gift  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

^  Shall  he  cotide?7ined,>cc6rxK^i6iiTiTcii.  E.  T.  Shall  be  damned. 
But  this  is  not  a  just  version  of  the  Gr.  word.  The  term  dam- 
«<?rf,  with  us,  relates  solely  to  the  doom  that  shall  be  pronounced 
upon  the  wicked  at  the  last  day.  This  cannot  be  affirmed,  with 
truth,  of  the  Gr.  xurxy-pivu^  which  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
Eng.  verb  condemn.  It  may  relate  to  that  future  sentence,  and 
it  may  not.  All  the  La.  translations  I  know,  Vul.  Ar.  Zu.  Er. 
Cas.  Cal.  Be.  say,  condemnabitur.  But  if  the  word  had  been 
dumnahitur^  it  would  have  made  no  difference,  as  these  two  La. 
verbs  are  synonymous.  It  is  not  so  with  the  Eng.  v.ords,  to 
damn,  and  to  condemn.  I  cannot  help  observing,  that  though  the 
Itn.  and  Fr.  languages  have  verbs  exactly  corresponding,  in  the 
difference  of  their  meanings,  to  the  two  Eng.  verbs,  their  trans- 
lators have,  very  properly,  preferred  the  more  general  term. 
Dio.  says,  Sui'a  comlannato  :  G  F.  L.  CI.  Beau.  P.  R.  Si.  Sa. 
Sara  condamne.  In  regard  to  the  more  modern  Eng.  versions, 
they  have  all  replaced  the  proper  word  condemned.,  except  Wes. 
who  retains  the  term  of  the  common  translation.  Ch.  xii.  \Q. 
N.  It  is  still  worse  to  render  the  simple  verb  ycpivttv  (2  Thess. 
ii.  12)  to  damn  ;  that  verb  properly  signifying  not  so  much  as  to 
condemn.^  but  to  judge.,  to  try  :  though  sometimes  used  by  a 
figure,  the  cause  for  the  consequence,  to  denote  to  punish. 

Jerom  has  observed,  that  there  were  few  of  theGr.  copies,  he 
had  seen,  which  had  the  last  twelve  verses  of  this  chapter.  They 
are  still  wanting  in  many  MSS.  and  are  not  comprehended  in  the 
canons  of  Eusebius.  But  they  are  in  the  Sy.  version,  the  Ara. 
and  the  Vul.  and  were  in  the  old  Itc.  and  other  ancient  versions. 
They  are  in  the  Al.  and  Cam.  M^S.  They  are,  also,  in  The.'s 
Commentaries.  But  what  weighs  most  with  me,  I  acknowledge, 
is,  that  the  manner  wherein  so  ancieait  a  writer  as  Irena'us,  in  the 
second  century,  refers  to  this  Gospel,  renders  it  highly  proba- 
ble that  the  whole  passage  was  read  in  all  the  copies  known  io 
him.  hi  fine  autem  evangelii,  ait  Marcus,  '•  Et  quidem  Domi.. 
-•"  nus  Jesus,  postqnctm  locutus  est  cis,  receptus  est  in  ckIos.  ei 


248  NOTES  ON,  &c.  ch.  xti. 

**  sedet  ad  dexieram  Dez.^'  Adv.  Haer.  lib.  iii.  cap.  11.  The 
verse  quoted  is  the  nineteenth,  and  the  chapter  has  but  twenty. 
It  deserves  our  notice,  that  there  is  not  a  single  MS.  which  has 
this  verse,  that  has  not,  also,  the  whole  passage  from  the  eighth 
to  the  end;  nor  is  there  a  MS.  which  wants  this  verse,  that 
does  not  also  want  the  whole.  No  authority,  of  equal  an- 
tiquity, has  yet  been  produced  upon  the  other  side.  It  has  been 
conjectured,  that  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  account,  here 
given,  of  our  Lord's  appearances,  after  his  resurrection,  with 
those  of  the  other  Evangelists,  has  emboldened  some  transcribers 
to  omit  them.  The  plausibility  of  this  conjecture,  the  abrupt- 
ness of  the  conclusion  of  this  history,  without  the  words  in  ques- 
tion, and  the  want  of  any  thing  like  a  reason  for  adding  them, 
if  they  had  not  been  there  originally,  render  their  authenticity, 
at  least,  probable.  Transcribers  sometimes  presume  to  add  and 
alter,  in  order  to  remove  contradictions,  but  not,  as  far  as  I  can 
remember,  in  order  to  make  them. 


NOTES 

CRITICAL  AND  EXPLANATORY. 


THE  GOSPEL  BY  LUKE. 
CHAPTER  L 

1.  IBIKGS  which  have  been  accomplished  amongst  iis^  tu^ 
■at'TrM^tZo^yt^i'iUH  tw  ;;'/«,(»  ■srpxyfJLes.Tm.  E.  T.  Things  zihich  are  most 
surely/  believed  among  tis.  Vul.  Qnce  in  nobis  completce  sunt 
rerum.  Lu.  ©o  unter  uns  ergangcn  QnB.  Be.  Rcrum  quarum  pic. 
Tia  Jides  nobis  facta  est.  As  the  greater  part  of  modern  inter- 
preters, who  have  written  since,  both  abroad  and  at  home,  adopt, 
with  Be.  the  latter  method  of  translating,  it  is  proper  to  assign 
my  reasons  for  joining  Lu.  Ham.  and  the  few  who,  with  the  Vul. 
prefer  the  former.  The  verb  7rXii§a(pe§£u  admits,  in  Scripture,  two 
interpretations.  One  is,  to  perform,  fulfil,  or  accomplish  ;  the 
other,  to  convince,  persuade,  or  embolden,  that  is,  to  inspire  with 
that  confidence  which  is  commonly  consequent  upon  conviction  ; 
and  hence  the  noun  TrXvi^ocpo^iei  denotes  conviction,  assurance,  con. 
Jidence.  The  passive  ■srXv^sot^opeofA.xt  is  accordingly  either  to  be  per. 
formed,  &c.  or  to  be  convinced,  kc.  Now,  as  it  is  only  of  things 
that  we  can  say,  They  are  performed,  and  of  persons.  They  arc 
convinced,  there  can  be  little  doubt  in  any  occurrence,  about 
the  signification  of  the  word.  But,  in  the  way  in  which  Be.  and 
others  have  rendered  this  verse,  neither  of  these  senses  is  given 
to  the  term.  That  they  have  purposely  avoided  the  first  signifi- 
cation, they  acknowledge ;  nor  can  it  be  denied  that,  aware  of 
the  absurdity  of  speaking  of  things  being  convinced,  persuaded. 
or  emboldened,  they  have  eluded  the  second.  For  this  reason, 
they  have  adopted  some  term  nearly  related  to  this  meaning,  but 
not  coincident  with  it,  or  have  disguised  the  deviation  by  a  peri- 
phrasis. Our  translators  have  rendered  zr('7r>,7ipo(po^7jfJit<tav  most 
surely  believed^  after  Er,  quae  certissimcB  fidci  sunt.    But  whcjp 


250  NOTES  ON  ch.  i-. 

do  we  find  5rA;}»<»<^af£<v  signifying  to  believe  ?  Not  in  Scripture,  I 
suspect :  but,  that'we  may  not  decide  rashly,  let  us  examine  the 
places  where  the  word  occurs.     Paul  says,  concerning  Abra- 
ham (Rom.  iv.  21.)  TXyi^e<pe^ij6eti;  on  o  iTfi^/yiXrcu  [o  %io%\  ^vvxros 
ts-<  y-xi  w-a/jj5-«;,  being  convinced  that  God  is  able  to  perform  what 
he  hath  promised.     Again,  in  recommending  to  the  Romans  mo- 
deration and  tolerance  towards  one  another,  as  to  days  and  meats, 
of  which  some  made  distinctions,  and  others  did  not,  he  says 
(Rom,  xiv.  5.),  ly-x.?-^  ev  ra  ihu  vot  7!rX7]pe(popei<r3-6f^  Let  every  man 
he  convinced  in  his  oion  mind.     If  in   such  points  be  act  upon 
conviction,  though  erroneous,  it  is  enough.     As,  in  both  these, 
it  is  to  persons  that  this  quality,  is  attributed,  there  has  never 
been  any  doubt  about  the  meaning.     Only  we  may  remark,  up- 
on the  last  example,  that  it  is  a  direct  confutation  of  what  Be. 
affirms  in  his  notes  on  L.  to  be  the  import  of  the  word,  namely, 
that  it  implies  not  the  conviction  produced,  but  the  full  suffi- 
ciency of  the  evidence  given.     Te  zrA-,j^o^of«(r3-£t<,  says  he,  ad  res 
accommoduium,  res  signijicat  ita  certis  testimoniis  comprobatas, 
tit  de  iis  ambigi  meritb  non  possit.    Again,  Nee  enim  hie  dictum 
z'oluit  Lucas  fuisse  certam  ab  auditoribus  adhibitam  Evangelic 
ccB  doctrines  Jidem,  sed  ea  sese  scrijdurum  de  Christi  dictis  et 
factis,  qua;  certissimis  testimoniis  vera  esse  constitisset.     Now, 
in  the  passage  quoted,  we  find  it  applied  alike  to  the  persuasion 
of  opposite  opinions,  to  wit,  that  there  ought,   and  that  there 
ought  not,  to  be  made  a  distinction  of  days  and  meats.     Now,  as 
two  contradictory  opinions  cannot  be  both  true,  neither  can  both 
be  supported  by  irrefragable  evidence.      Yet   the  Apostle  says, 
concerning  both,  a-A;j«o4)o?«o-.^<w  ey-ses-®-.    The  term,  therefore,  has 
no  relation  to  the  strength  or  weakness  of  the  evidence  ;  it  sole- 
ly expresses  the  conviction  produced  in  the  mind,   whether  by 
real  evidence,  or  by  what  only  appears   such.     Though  both, 
therefore,  deviate,  the  E.  T.  deviates  less  than  Be.     But  to  re- 
turn :  there  are  also  in  Paul's  Epistles  two  examples  of  this  verb 
applied  to  things.     He  says  to  Timothy  (2  Tim.  iv.  5.),  t«v  hx- 
Kivtav  tra  7r>>.yi^o<popviTov^  fulfil  thy  ministry^  agreeably  to  the  render- 
ing of  the  Vul.  ministerium  tuum  imple,  and  of  all  the  ancient 
translations.     Be.  in  conformity  to  his  own  explanation  of  the 
word  ministerii  tui  plenam  fidcmfacito,  literally  rendered  by 
oar  ix\ter]^reters,  tnake  full  proof  of  thy  ministry,  as  though  it 
^ere  not  so  much  an  object  to  a  Christian  minister  to  dischargif 


OH.  1.  S.  LUKE,  251 

his  duty,  as  to  approve  himself  to  men  ;  whereas,  the  former  is 
certainly  the  primary  object,  the  latter  but  a  secondary  one  at 
the  best.  This  manner  is,  besides,  worse  adapted  than  the  other, 
both  to  the  spirit  of  Christian  morality,  which,  inspiring  with  a 
superiority  to  the  opinions  of  fallible  men,  fixes  the  attention  on 
the  unerringjudgment  of  God  ;  and  to  the  simplicity  of  the  apos- 
tolical injunctions.  The  only  other  passage  is  in  the  same  chap- 
ter (iv.  17.),  'O  <Je  Kvpi^  fMi  9r<*^5f5},  >^  sviSvvxf,tMTs  |tt£,  t\ix  Si'  eu-ki 
TO  Kiipvyf^oi  zrXf}p(f<pop»6ii.  The  last  clause  is  rendered  by  the  Vul. 
ut  per  me  prccdicatio  impleatiir^  that  by  me  the  preaching  may 
be  accomplished.  Be.  after  his  manner,  uf  per  me  plene  certio- 
raretur  prwconinm.,  and  after  him  the  E.  T.  that  by  me  the 
preaching  might  be  fully  known.  This  method  has  here  the  ad- 
ditional disadvantage,  that  it  makes  the  next  clause  a  repetition 
of  the  sentiment  in  other  words,  and  that  all  the  Gentiles  might 
hear.  Er.  has  been  so  sensible  of  this,  that  he  has  deserted  his 
ordinary  manner,  and  said,  ut  per  me  pra:coniuni  expleretur. 
The  word  occurs  only  once  in  the  Sep.  and,  as  it  is  applied  to 
persons,  it  signifies,  persuaded^  emboldened  (Eccl.  viii.  11.)  ho^ 
Turo  i'7r>^vipo<poP7i6ij  H-etpSix  Oiav  ra  ctvSpaJTra  ev  ctvroii  m  Trof/j-rxi  To  Tovr,- 
^sv.  Therefore  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  emboldened  to  do 
evil.  It  answers  in  this  place  to  the  Heb.  xVd  inula.,  usually  ren- 
dered ^Aijifo&i.  I  shall  only  add,  that  the  sense  here  assigned  is 
better  suited  to  the  spirit  and  tenor  of  these  histories,  than  the 
other.  A  simple  narrative  of  the  facts  is  given  ;  but  no  attempt 
is  made,  by  argument,  asseveration,  or  animated  expression,  to 
bias  the  understanding,  or  work  upon  the  passions.  The  naked 
truth  is  left  to  its  own  native  evidence.  The  wrifers  betray  no 
suspicion  of  its  insufficiency.  This  method  of  theirs  has  more 
of  genuine  dignity  than  the  other,  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  has  been 
productive  of  more  durable  consequences  than  ever  yet  resulted 
from  the  arts  of  rhetoricians,  and  the  enticing  words  of  man's 
wisdom.  The  examples  from  pagan  authors  will  be  found  to  con- 
firm, instead  of  confuting,  the  explanation  given  above.  I  desire 
no  better  instance  than  the  quotation  from  Ctesias  adduced  by 
Wetstein,  which  appeared  to  Mr.  Parkhurst  so  satisfactory  a  sup. 
port  of  Beza's  interpretation,  iToAAa^  »v  Aoyo<5  >i  o^x«(?  vXri^otpopit^ 
5-«yTfs  M£y«/3t/i^oy,  ''  Having  convinced  Megabyzus  with  many 
words  and  oaths."  In  this  way  rendered,  the  words  are  per- 
fectly intelligible,  and  suit  the  scope  of  the  writer.  But  wiU  any 


252  NOTES  ON  ch.  i.- 

one  say  that  Ctesias  meant  to  affirm  that  many  words  and  oaths 
are  a  full  proof  of  the  truth  of  an  opinion  ?  We  all  know  that 
they  not  only  are  the  common  resource  of  those  who  are  con- 
scious that  they  have  no  proof  or  evidence  to  offer,  but  with  ma- 
ny are  more  powerful  than  demonstration  itself,  in  producing 
conviction. 

2.  Afterwards  ministers  of  the  zcord^  'uvri^iToii  yeui^aai  m  Mya. 
Vul.  Ministri  fueriint  sermonis.  I  have  here  also  preferred  the 
rendering  of  the  Vul.  to  that  of  some  modern  La.  interpreters^ 
who  have  given  a  very  different  sense  to  the  expression.  In  this 
I  am  happy  in  the  concurrence  of  our  translators,  who  have,  in 
opposition  to  Be.  followed  the  old  interpreter.  However,  as  the 
authorities  on  the  other  side  are  considerable,  it  is  proper  to  as- 
sign  the  reasons  of  this  preference.  There  are  three  senses  which 
have  been  put  upon  the  words.  First,  by  o  Xoyoc,  some  have  thought 
that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  meant,  who  is  sometimes  so  deno- 
minated by  John.  But  this  opinion  is  quite  improbable,  inasmuch 
as  the  idiom  is  peculiar  to  that  Apostle.  And  even  if  this  were 
the  meaning  of  the  word  here,  it  ought  not  to  be  differently 
translated,  because  ?«/n«.y^er*  o/^fte  wordh  just  as  much  fitted 
for  conveying  it  in  Eng.  as  uTnipeTcci  ro  Mya  is  in  Gr.  The  Eng. 
name  is  neither  more  seldom  nor  less  plainly  given  him  in  the 
translation,  than  the  Gr.  name  is  given  him  in  the  original.  If 
there  be  any  obscurity  or  ambiguity  in  the  one,  there  is  the  same 
in  the  other.  The  second  meaning  is  that  which  most  modern 
interpreters  have  adopted,  who  render  th  Xoya  the  thi  ig^  not  the 
zoord ;  supposing  it  to  denote  the  same  with  Trpxyy^xTm  in  the 
preceding  verse ;  and  understand  by  vzrtjpercci  those  concerned  in 
the  events,  either  as  subordinate  agents  in  effecting  them,  or  as 
partakers  in  their  immediate  consequences.  Thus  Be.  adminis- 
tri  ipsius  ret  ;  Cas.  to  the  same  purpose,  administrator es  rei ; 
Er.  followed  by  the  interpreter  of  Zu.  more  in  the  style  of  Vir- 
gil than  of  Luke,  qui  pars  aliqua  eorumf  iterant ;  and  these  have 
had  their  imitators  among  the  translators  into  modern  languages. 
Now  my  reasons  for  not  adopting  this  manner,  which  is  support, 
ed  by  expositors  of  great  name,  are  the  following  :  1st,  If  >\6yo<; 
had  meant  here  (as  I  acknowledge  it  often  does)  thing,  not  word, 
it  would  have  been  in  the  plural  number,  as  -sTfoLyfJiMTm  is,  which 
relates  to  the  same  eventSj  things  so  multifarious  as  io  include 


cii.  1.  -h.  LUKE.  '253 

whatever  Jesus  did,  or  said,  or  suftered.  2dly,  When  the  word 
Aey®-,  in  the  fourth  verse,  is  actually  u^ed  in  this  meaning,  hav- 
ing the  same  reference  as  ■sroa.yf.ca  to  the  things  accomplished,  it 
is  in  the  plural.  Aoy^^  therefore,  in  tlie  singular  in  this  accep- 
tation in  the  second  verse,  would  not  be  more  repugnant  to  pro- 
priety than  to  (he  construction  both  of  the  preceding  part  of  the 
sentence  and  of  the  following.  3d!y,  I  am  as  little  satisfied  as 
to  the  propriety  of  the  word  uTc/iPiTott  in  that  interpretation.  YiTj;- 
PiTT}^  denotes  properly  minister^  servant,  or  agent,  employed  by 
another  in  the  performance  of  any  work.  But  in  Avhat  sense  the 
Apostles  or  other  disciples  could  be  called  ministers  or  agents 
in  the  much  greater  part  of  those  events,  whereof  the  Gospel  gives 
us  a  detail,  I  have  no  conception.  The  principal  things  are  what 
happened  to  our  Lord,  his  miraculous  conception  and  divine  ori- 
ginal, the  manifest  interposition  of  the  Deity  at  his  baptism  and 
transfiguration,  also  his  trial,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension. 
In  these  surely  they  had  no  agency  or  ministry  whatever.  As 
to  the  miracles  which  he  performed,  and  the  discourses  which  he 
spoke;  the  most  that  can  be  said  of  the  Apostles,  is,  that  they 
saw  the  one,  and  heard  the  other.  Nor  could  any  little  service 
in  ordinary  matters,  such  as  distributing  the  loaves  and  fishes  to 
the  multitude,  making  preparation  for  the  passover,  or  even  the 
extraordinary  powers  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  perform  some 
miracles,  not  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  entitle  them  to  be  styled 

vTT'^psTui  Ttuv  iz-eTTXripotpopyiiJLiVuv  Bv  Tif^tv  ■zs-pxyy.x.re-r;,  of  which  alone  the 
Gospels  are  the  histories;  and  lor  expressing  their  participation 
in  the  immediate  effects  of  what  they  witnessed,  the  term  vTs-^percci 
appears  to  me  quite  unsuitable.  So  much  for  the  rejection  of 
that  interpretation,  though  favoured  by  Gro.  and  Ham.  My 
reasons  for  adopting  the  other  are  these:  The  zcord  of  God,  o 
>Ayo^  m  Qsa,  was,  with  Jews  as  well  as  Christians,  a  common 
expression  for  whatever  God  communicates  to  men  for  their  in. 
struction,  whether  doctrines  or  precepts.  Tims  our  Lord,  in 
explaining  the  parable  of  the  sower,  informs  us  that  the  seed 
denotes  the  zourd  of  God,  i  Myo<;  m  Qm  (L.  viii.  11.).  In  what 
follows  in  the  explanation,  and  in  the  other  Gospels,  it  is  styled 
simply  the  zsord.  Thus  (Mr.  iv.  14.),  'o  c-^iipm  rov  Myov  a-vc-tpn, 
The  sozcer,  which  is  explained  to  mean  the  preacher,  soiceth  the 
icord.  Hence,  among  Christians,  it  came  frequently  to  denote 
the  Gospel,  the  last,  and  the  best,  revelation  of  God's  will  to 
vor-  IV.  32 


254  NOTES  ON  cii.  i. 

men.  Nor  is  tliis  idiom  more  familiar  to  any  of  l!ie  sacred  wri- 
ters  than  to  L.  See  the  following  passages  ;  L.  viii.  12,  13.  15. 
Acts,  iv.  4.  vi,  4.  viii.  4.  x.  44.  xi.  19.  xiv.  25.  xvi.  6.  xvii.  11. 
For  brevity's  sake,  I  have  produced  those  places  only  wherein 
the  abridged  form,  o  >,ayo<i^  the  isord^  is  used  as  in  the  text.  I 
cannot  help  observing  that  in  one  of  the  passages  above  quoted, 
.Vets,  vi.  4.  the  phrase  is  «?'  hxKonu  m  Aoys,  the  ministrij  of  the 
icord.  This  is  mentioned  as  being  eminently  the  business  of  the 
Apostles,  and  opposed  to  ^ictMvicc  rpxTre^av,  the  service  of  tables, 
an  inferior  sort  of  ministry,  which  was  soon  to  be  committed  to 
a  set  of  stewards  elected  for  the  purpose.  AVho  knows  not  that 
uTTiipiTTii  and  ^luKovoi  are,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  Acts  and  Epis- 
tles, used  indiscriminately  for  a  minister  of  religion  ?  It  is  im- 
possible, therefore,  on  reflection,  to  hesitate  a  moment  in  affirm- 
ing, that  the  historian  here  meant  to  acquaint  us,  that  he  had  re- 
ceived his  information  from  those  who  had  attended  Jesus,  and 
been  witnesses  of  every  thing  during  his  public  ministration  up- 
on the  earth,  and  who,  after  his  ascension,  had  been  intrusted  by 
him  with  the  charge  of  propagating  his  doctrine  throughout  the 
world.     Aiulitors  first,  ministers  afterwards. 

3.  Having  exactly  traced  everi/  thing,  -is-apv/.oX^dtjx.eiTi  ttutiv  eoc- 
piQui.  E.  T.  Having  hud  perfect  understanding  of  all  things. 
The  words  in  the  original  express  more  than  is  comprised  in  the 
eomm.on  versioa.  By  the  active  verb  zTx^otKoXaSsM,  joined  with  the 
a>dverb  otK^tQui,  are  suggested  his  diligence  and  attention  in  pro. 
curing  exact  information,  and  not  barely  the  effect,  or  that  he 
actually  possessed  an  accurate  account  of  the  whole.  I  agree 
with  Maldonat,  who  says,  "  Non  scientiam  his  verbis,  sed  diii- 
"  gentiam  suam  commendat,  quam  in  quoirendis,  vestigandis,  ex- 
"  plorandisque  iis  rebus  adhibuerit  quas  scribere  volebat."  The 
interpretation  here  given  is  also,  in  my  judgment,  more  confor- 
mable to  the  import  of  the  verb  zTx^ctKoXaiiu  in  other  passages  of 
the  N.  T.  where  it  is  spoken  of  persons.  1  Tim.  iv.  6.  2  Tim. 
iii.  10.  That  L,  was  not,  as  Whitby  supposes,  an  attendant  on 
our  Lord's  ministry,  the  contrast,  in  the  preceding  verse,  oi  otv- 
roTrrect  >t  vTr-^perxi,  ej/e-Tcihiesses  and  ministers,  to  what  he  calls, 
in  this  verse  '7rx.pf)y.a}<.ii3v,KU(i  wca-i^  ccKpi^ui,  clearly  shows.  Can 
we  imagine  that,  by  this  less  explicit  phrase,  he  would  have  de- 
scribed the  source  of  his  own  intelligence,  had  he  been  himself 


cH.  I.  S.  LUKE.  255 

of  the  avTovToii  Kdi  uTTYi^eToti.  There  is,  besides,  in  the  preceding 
■words,  another  contrast  of  the  ccvrovrxi  who  gave  the  first  testi- 
mony concerning  J?sus,  to  those  who  received  their  testimony, 
in  which  latter  class  he  includes  himself,  Tt-ap^^oTcDi  'HMIN  o<  «a-' 
»tX>^A  uvTaTTxi.  Now,  if  it  had  not  been  his  express  purpose  to 
rank  himself  among  these;  if  he  had  meant  to  oppose  the  xvroTr- 
rxi  to  those  only  who,  from  their  information,  had  formerly  un- 
dertaken narratives,  the  proper  and  obvious  expression  would 
have  been,  KuS-ui  ■zs-u.^i^o'rxi  ATT0I2  ii  </.v''  u^X^^  ccvroTrrai. 

^  To  zcrite  a  particular  account  to  thec^  xah^rii  o-a;  y^x-^at.  E. 
T.  To  zcrite  unto  thee  in  order.  From  the  word  x.x&lr,q  wc  can- 
not conclude,  as  some  have  hastily  done,  that  the  order  of  time 
is  observed  better  by  this,  than  by  any  other.  Evangelist.  The 
word  fcxOt^m  does  not  necessarily  relate  to  time.  See  Acts  xviii. 
23.  The  proper  import  of  it  is  distinctly^  particularly^  as  op- 
posed to  confusedly^  generally. 

^  Theophilus,  Qto^tXs.  It  has  been  questioned  whether  this 
word  is  to  be  understood  here  as  a  proper  name,  or  as  an  appel- 
lative. In  the  latter  case,  it  ought  to  be  rendered  lover  of  God. 
But  I  prefer  the  former,  which  is  the  more  usual,  way  of  under- 
standing it.  For,  1st,  If  the  Evangelist  meant  to  address  his 
discourse  to  all  pious  Christians,  and  had  no  one  individual  in 
view,  I  think  he  would  have  put  his  intention  beyond  all  doubt, 
by  using  the  plural  number,  and  saving  y.^xTtTot  S-$b(Pi?^o(.  2dly, 
This  enigmatical  manner  of  addressing  all  true  Christians,  under 
the  appearance  of  bespeaking  the  attention  of  an  individual,  does 
not  scorn  agreeable  to  the  simplicity  of  style  used  in  the  Gospel, 
and  must  have  appeared  to  the  writer  himself  as  v\'hat  could  not 
fail  to  be  misunderstood  by  most  readers,  proper  names  of  such 
a  form  as.  Theophilus,  and  even  this  very  name,  being  common 
in  Gr.  and  La.  authors.  3dly,  In  the  Scriptures,  when  ^<Ao?, 
that  is,  lover,  or  friend^  makes  part  of  a  compound  epithet,  it  is 
always,  if  I  mistake  not,  placed  in  the  beginning,  not  the  end,  of 
,  the  compound.  The  apostle  Paul,  to  express  lover  of  God,  says, 
<pt\o6iOi  (2  Tim.  iil.  4.).  There  occur,  also,  in  holy  writ,  several 
other  compositions,  after  the  same  manner,  of  which  this  noun 
makes  a  part  ;  as,  tpiXayxSoi,  <piXxdiX(po<i,  ^iMs^v^fa?,  (pi>.xv€^6)7rci, 
^<A«f'/f^fl?,  <PiXxvT6i,  ^/A;joov5§,  <P<Aov«K04,  ^/Ao|£va«,  (^J^arj^o?,  <^/Acraf- 

yes,  (^■iXorey.'ia';.     The  other  manner  wherein  >piMi  is  placed  in  the 
<^nd.  though  not  unexampled  in  classjcal  writers,  is  mudi  more 


266  NOTES  ON  cii.  i, 

uncommon.  Lastly,  What  is  said  in  the  fourth  verse  evidently 
shows,  that  the  author  addressed  himself  to  a  person,  with  whose 
manner  of  being  instructed  in  the  Christian  doctrine  he  was  par- 
ticularly acquainted. 

"*  Most  excellent^  K-oxTi^-e.  Some  consider  this  as  an  epithet, 
denoting  the  character  of  the  person  named,  others  as  an  hono- 
rary title,  expressing  respect  to  oflice  or  rank.  I  prefer  the  lat- 
ter opinion.  The  word  occurs  only  in  three  other  places  of  the 
N.  T.  all  in  the  Acts  of  ^e  Apostles,  another  work  of  the  same 
hand.  In  these  places,  the  title  is  manifestly  given  as  a  mark  of 
respect  to  eminence  of  station.  Accordingly  it  is  only  on  Felix 
and  Festus,  when  they  were  governors  of  the  province,  that  we 
find  it  conferred.  Is  is  therefore  not  improbable  that  Theophi- 
lus  has  been  the  chief  magistrate  of  some  city  of  note  in  Greece 
or  Asia  Minor,  and  consequently  intitled  to  be  addressed  in  this 
respectful  manner.  For  though  Paul  observes  (1  Cor.  i.  26.), 
that  there  were  not  many  v^ise  men  after  the  flesh,  not  many 
rich,  not  many  noble,  in  the  Christian  community,  his  expres- 
sion plainly  suggests  that  there  were  some.  And,  at  the  same 
time  that  we  find  the  inspired  penmen  ready  to  show  all  due  re- 
spect to  magistracy,  and  to  give  honour,  as  well  as  tribute,  to 
whom  it  is  due;  no  writers  are  less  chargeable  with  giving  flat- 
tering titles  to  men.  Such  compellations,  therefore,  as  ayxSe, 
p,s>.riTs^  x^xrire,  when  they  may  be  considered  as  adulatory  or 
complimental,  however  usual  among  the  Greeks,  do  not  suit  the 
manner  of  the  sacred  writers.  When  Paul  gave  this  title  to  Fes- 
tus, it  appears  it  was  customary  so  to  address  the  Roman  presi- 
dents or  procurators.  In  this  manner  we  find  Felix,  who  pre- 
ceded Festus,  was  addressed,  both  by  the  military  tribune  Ly- 
sias,  and  by  the  orator  Tertullus.  Such  titles  are  a  mere  piece 
of  deference  to  the  civil  establishment,  and  imply  dignity  of  func- 
tion or  rank,  but  no  personal  quality  in  the  man  to  whom  they 
are  given.  .  The  same  distinction,  between  official  respect  and 
personal,  obtains  amongst  ourselves.  Among  so  many  reverends, 
it  is,  no  doubt,  possible  to  find  some  whose  private  character 
would  entitle  them  to  no  reverence.  And  it  will  not,  perhaps, 
bethought  miraculous  to  meet  with  an  honourable.,  on  whom  the 
principles  of  honour  and  honesty  have  little  influence.  The  or- 
der of  civil  society  requires  a  certain  deference  to  oflice  and  rank, 
independently  of  the  merit  of  the  occupant,  and  a  proper  atten.,,. 


S.LUKE.  257 

tion,  in  paying  this  deference,  shows  regard  to  the  constitution 
of  the  country,  and  is  of  public  utility,  in  more  respects  than 
one.  But  of  those  commendatory  epithets,  which  are  merely  per- 
sonal, these  writers,  alike  untainted  with  fanaticism  and  flattery, 
are  very  sparing.  They  well  knew,  that  where  they  are  most  me- 
rited,  they  are  least  coveted,  or  even  needed.  But,  in  a  few  ages 
afterwards,  the  face  of  things,  in  this  respect,  changed  greatly. 
In  proportion  as  men  became  more  deGcient  in  valuable  qualities, 
they  became  more  fond,  and  more  lavish  of  fine  words. 

5.  Of  the  course  of  Abijah,  1%  n^ni^i^Mc,  aQioc.  This  was  one 
of  the  twenty.four  sacerdotal  families  into  which  the  whole  order 
was  divided  by  David  (1  Chron.  xxiv.  3,  &c.)  and  which  served 
in  the  temple  by  turns. 

9.  The  sanctuary,  rov  v«ov.    E.  T.  The  temple.    Had  the  word 
been  to  U^ov,  it  could  not  have  been  rendered  otherwise  than  the 
temple  ;  but  o  v^;^,  though  commonly  translated  the  same  way, 
is  not  synonymous.     The  former  comprehended  the  whole  edi- 
fice   with  all  its  enclosures,  piazzas,  and  other  buildings ;  the 
latter  included  only  what  was  termed,  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
house,  consisting  of  the  vestibule,  the  holy  place  or  sanctuary, 
and  the  most  holy.   The  altar  of  incense,  on  which  the  perfumes 
were  burnt,  was  in  the  sanctuary  :  the  people  who  were  praying 
without,  were  in  the  temple,  ev   ru  h^u,   in  the  court  of  Israel, 
though  not  in  what  was  strictly  called  the  house  of  God,  that  is, 
ev  ra  mu.     In  order  to  render  the  version  as  explicit  as  the  ori- 
ginal, it  behoves  us  to  avoid  confounding  things  in  the  one, 
which  are  not  confounded  in  the  other. 

15.  Any  fermented  liquor,  (rui^cc.  E.  T.  Strong  drink.  Some 
think  that  by  this  name  was  meant  a  liquor  made  of  dates,  the  fruit 
of  the  palm  tree,  a  drink  much  used  in  the  East.  But  I  see  no  rea- 
son for  confining  the  term  to  this  signification.  The  Avord  is 
Heb.  iB'a  shecher,  and  has  been  retained  by  the  Seventy  inter- 
preters in  those  passages  where  the  law  of  the  Nazarites  is 
laid  down,  and  in  the  rules  to  be  observed  by  the  priests,  whpn  it 
should  be  their  turn  to  oihciate  in  the  temple.  The  Heb.  root 
signifies  to  inebriate,  or  77iake  drunk.  All  fermented  liquors, 
therefore,  as  being  capable  of  producing  this  efl'ect,  were  under, 
stood  as  implied  in  the  term.  Strong  drink  is  not  the  meaning. 
It  might  be  impossible  by  words  to  define  intelligibly  the  precise 


258  NOTES  ON  cii.  u 

degree  of  strength  forbidden,  or  for  judges  to  ascertain  the 
transgression.  For  this  reason  the  proper  subject  of  positive 
law  is  kinds,  not  degrees  in  quality,  whereof  no  standard  can  be 
assigned.  For  (liis  reason,  all  liquors,  however  weak,  which 
had  undergone  fermentation,  were  understood  to  be  prohibited 
both  to  the  Nazarites,  and  to  tlio  priests  during  the  week  wherein 
they  officiated  in  the  temple. 

17.  And,  bjj  the  zc/'sJom  of  ihe  righfcoits,  to  render  the  dis- 
obedient a  people  zccll. disposed  for  the  Lord,  ji,  ccTreiSa';,  ev  <p^ovy,. 
e-H  auxiojv,  'cTotf/,x<rxi  Kvptu  A«av  x.xri'nc'vxTf/.svov.  E.  T.  yiiul  the 
dtsobedient  to  the  zcisdom  of  the  just,  to  make  rcadjj  a  people 
prepared  for  the  Lord.  The  construction,  in  this  way  of  ren- 
dering the  words,  must  be  j^.  tTn^-pe-^/xt  aTra^eK;  ev  (ppovy^Fet  ^iKxim, 
tToty.ei.a-ut  ?\ecov  Kctreo-icivcia-i^vov  Kv^ia.  I  readily  admit  that  ev  in  the 
N.  T.  is  sometimes  used,  according  to  the  Heb.  idiom  for  «?  or 
fTi,  and  sometimes  for  e-w  or  for  ^ix  ;  but  this  concession  is  not 
to  be  understood  as  implying,  that  such  a  use  may  happen  equal- 
ly in  whatever  way  the  words  be  connected.  I  question  whether 
the  verb  c^iT^i-^cci  will  ever  be  found  joined  with  the  preposition 
f»,  for  expressing  to  turn  to,  or  to  convert  to.  It  renders  it  the 
more  improbable  that  this  should  be  the  case  liere,  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding clause  we  find  the  verb  c7ri?-pi-4^cit  followed  by  the  preposi- 
tion EJTi,  for  expressing  this  very  idea,  turning  to,  or  converting 
io.  That  in  two  parallel  and  similar  clauses,  depending  on  the 
same  verb,  such  an  alteration  should  be  made  in  the  construc- 
tion, is  very  improbable,  being  repugnant  at  once  to  simplicity, 
perspicuity,  and  propriety.  It  has  some  weight  also,  that  as,  in 
that  explanation,  the  sentence  has  three  clauses,  though  tiie  first 
and  the  second  are  coupled  by  the  conjunction  y^,  there  is  no 
copulative  prefixed  to  the  tliird.  This,  at  least,  is  unusual,  and 
suits  neither  the  Heb.  idiom  nor  the  Gr.  In  the  May  I  under, 
stand  the  sentence,  it  has  but  two  clauses.  ATreiBm  is  not  govern- 
ed by  £'?r:=-^r'^ott,  but  by  the  following  verb  £ro/;M,«7-«/.  The  plac. 
ing  of  a  comma  after  xTreiSm  is  all  the  change  necessary  in  the 
pointing.  This  makes  o  (ppor/jTsi  oikxhjv  fall  between  two  com- 
mas, and  express  the  manner  in  which  the  Baptist  was  to  efl'ect 
those  changes,  namely,  by  inculcating  that  disposition  of  mind 
which,  with  righteous  men,  is  the  only  genuine  wisdom  or  pru- 
dence. Bishop  Pearce  has  given  the  same  turn  to  the  sentence  ; 
only  he  seems  to  think  that  the  word  Stx.xtm  peculiarly  relates  to 


CU.    1. 


S.  LUKE.  "59 


Tohn  himself.  This  supposition  is  quite  unnecessary,  and,  as 
\he  word  is  in  the  plural  number,  embarrasses  the  construction 
The  ^visclom  of  the  righteous  may  well  be  understood  as  opposed 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  ungodly,  in  like  manner  as  the  wisdom 
which  is  from  above  (another  phrase  for  the  same  thing)  is  op- 
posed to  the  wisdom  which  is  from  beneath. 

23.  Ws  daijs  of  officiating  :  that  is,  his  week  (for  it  lasted  no 
lon-^er  at  one  turn),  during  which  time  he  was  not  permitted  to 
Wav'e  the  precincts  of  the;  temple,  or  to  have  any  intercourse  with 
his  Avif^. 

OS    Favourite  of  Heaven,  .ep^u^tra^f-m.     Vul.  Gratia  plena. 
The.-e  is  no  doubt  that,  in  the  sense  wherein  this  last  expression 
was  usod  by  Jerom,  it  was  of  the  same  import  with  that  given 
here   after  Dod.  and  with  that  used  in  the  E.  T.  thou  art  hishltf 
favoured.     But  at  present,  the  phrase  fall  of  grace  would  not 
convey  the  same  meaning.     He.  Gratis  dilecta.     This,  though 
in  strictness  (if  we  consider  only  the  import  of  the  words  taken 
severally)  it  may  be  defended,   conveys  an  insinuation  exceed, 
in.ly  improper  and   unjust.     Gratis  dilecta  is  precisely  such  a 
compellation  as  we  should  reckon  suitable,  had  it  been  given  to 
the  woman  whom  our  Lord  permitted  to  anoint  his  feet  in  the 
hou^e  of  Simon,  to  the  great  scandal  of  that  Pharisee,  who  knew 
her  former  life.     What  might  even  but  obliquely  suggest  a  con. 
ception  so  remote  from  the  scope  of  the  Evangelist,  ought  care, 
fully  to  be  avoided. 

3  The  Lord  be  v:ith  ihcc,  o  Kv^^i^  fierce  o-^.  E.  T.  Ihe  Lord 
fs  -ilh  thee  Vul.  Kr.  and  Zu.  Dominus  tecum.  Be.  Dominus 
tecum  est.  As  the  substantive  verb  is  not  expressed  in  the  on. 
Einal,  it  may  be  interpreted  either  in  the  indicative  or  in  the  op- 
tative '  When  rendered  as  an  affirmation,  we  cannot  question 
its  truth.  But  it  seems  more  suitable  to  the  form  of  salutation, 
which  is  always  expressive  of  good  wishes,  to  understand  ,t  in 
the  latter  of  these  ways.  The  word  r.-^p.,  which  immediately 
precedes,  suits  this  interpretation,  and  so  did  all  the  forms  ot  sa. 
lutin-  customary  among  the  Hebrews,  such  as.  Peace  be  to  tins 
house  ■  the  Lord  be  zcith  you  ;  and,  the  Lord  bless  you.     bee 


ch.  X.  5.  Ruthi^  ,.  ^ 

3  Thou  hmnnest  of  xcomen,   ivXcy-n-^m  '^v  £»  yt;v«/§/v.     v..  J.. 
Blessed  art  thou  among  zcomen.  I  conceive  this  expression  here 


260  NOTES  ON  t^H.  j. 

as  more  properly  a  compellation  than  either  an  affirmation  or  a 
salutation  ;  and  I  understand  the  pronoun  as  cmphatical,  and  in 
the  vocative.  Such  a  phrase  as  evXoy^f^iVi)  ev  ywxi^tv  is,  in  the 
Heb.  idiom,  an  expression  of  the  superlative.  It  is  accordingly 
so  rendered  by  Cas.  in  this  place,  mulierum  fortunatissima.  The 
same  idiom  is  sometimes  similarly  used  in  the  E.  T.  Thus,  jj 
y-uXr,  ii  yvvu.'liv  in  the  Sep.  which  is  literally  from  the  Heb.  is, 
with  us,  thou  fairest,  atnong  women,  Cant.  i.  8.  and  ^"h  niaj  nnnaa 
laish  gibbor  babbehemah,  a  lion,  zahich  is  strongest  among 
beasts,  Prov.  xxx.  30.  The  expression  used  here  by  the  Evan- 
gelist we  find  repeated,  v.  42.  ;  but  as  it  is  coupled  w  ith  another 
clause,  >^  £t/Aey«^£v©-  0  «^««5r®-  Tr,i;  KotXixg  fh,  it  must  there  be  un- 
derstood as  an  affirmation. 

29.  At  his  appearance  and  words  she  was  jierplexed,  j»'  h  i^n- 
a-ct,  oierct,^a,x^'-^  ^''^^  ''*'  •^sy*'  civT\s.  Vul.  Qiue  cum  audisset,  turba- 
ta  est  in  sermone  ejus.  This  version  would  appear  to  have  sprung 
from  a  different  reading;  yet  there  is  no  known  reading  that  is 
entirely  conformable  to  it.  The  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  omit 
iJacrx.  Si.  thinks  that  the  Vul.  fully  expresses  the  meaning  of 
the  original,  and  that  the  Evangelist,  in  saying  i^ao-x,  has,  by  a 
trope  not  unusual  with  the  sacred  authors,  expressed  the  opera- 
tion of  one  of  our  senses  by  a  term  which,  in  strictness,  belongs 
to  another.  I  admit,  that  there  are  examples  of  this  kind,  but  I 
see  no  occasion  for  recurring  to  them  here.  It  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned that  such  an  extraordinary  appearance,  as  well  as  the 
words  spoken,  would  contribute  to  affect  the  mind  of  the  Virgin 
w  ith  apprehension  and  fear. 

3.5.  The  holy  progeni/,  to  yevmiit.evov  uyiov.  E.  T.  That  holy 
thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee.  Vul.  Quod  nascetur  ex  ie 
sanctum.  This  is  one  of  the  few  instances  in  which  our  transla- 
tors have  deserted  the  common  Gr.  and  preferred  the  present 
reading  of  the  Vul.  There  are  indeed  four  MSS.  only  one  of 
them  of  note,  and  the  lirst  Sy.  with  some  other  versions,  which 
concur  with  the  Vul.  iu  reading  bx.  c-a  after  to  ytnu^-u^ov.  But 
though  this  is  the  reading  of  the  authorised  editions  of  the  Vul. 
it  is  not  the  reading  of  most  of  the  MS.  copies.  Same  of  the  Fa- 
thers read  these  words  in  some  MSS.  and  attempted  to  account 
for  the  omission  of  them,  in  the  much  greater  number,  by  imput- 
ing it  to  the  Eutychians  and  other  heretics,  who  (they  would 


CH.  I.  S.  LUKE.  261 

have  us  believe)  expunged  them,  because  unfavourable  to  their 
errors.  But  it  is  far  more  probable  that  the  orthodox,  or  ruling 
party,  who  were  as  chargeable  with  frauds  of  this  sort  as  any 
heretics,  should  have  had  it  in  their  power  to  foist  the  words  in 
question  into  four  or  five  copies,  which  are  all  as  yet  found  to 
have  them,  than  that  any  sectaries  should  have  had  it  in  their 
power  to  expunge  them  out  of  more  than  fifty  times  that  number, 
in  which  they  are  wanting.  As  the  sense  is  complete  without 
them,  the  greater  number  of  copies,  especially  where  the  diffe- 
rence in  number  is  so  considerable,  ought  to  determine  the  point- 
Wet,  suspects,  and  not  implausibly,  that  the  inserted  words  have 
been  transferred  hither  from  Gal.  iv.  4.  As  there  is  nothing  in 
the  words  themselves  that  is  not  strictly  conformable  to  truth,  it 
is  easy  to  assign  a  reason  why  some  modern  editors,  and  even 
translators,  have  thought  it  more  eligible  to  insert  than  to  omit 
them.  In  sucli  cases,  this  will  be  found  the  most  common  way 
of  deciding. 

37.  Nothing  is  impossible  tsiih  God,  ay.  ci^v\)u,r7i'rei  Trx^u  ru 
<S>£u  voiv  ^'Kf^cx.  Vul.  Non  erit  impossibile  apud  Dcum  omne  re?'- 
bum.     Diss.  IX.  P.  II.  §  9. 

45.  Happy  is  she  zcho  believed,  (A^xKct^tu,  tt  '7rirev<rix,Tx.  Vul.  Be^ 
ata  qiice  credidisti.  In  like  manner  Cas.  Beatam  te  quoe  credi- 
deris.  A  little  after,  in  the  same  verse,  both  have  tibi,  wherein 
the  original  it  is  ccvrn.  Agreeable  to  these  is  the  Sax.  This  ex- 
pression of  the  sentiment,  by  the  second  person  instead  of  the 
third,  seems  peculiar  to  these  translators,  but  does  not  affect  the 
sense. 

^  That  the  things  which  the  Lord  hath  promised  her  shall  be 
performed,  on  irxt  reXeieiurK;  roa  XsXxMy-tv^ii  oivrvi  zrx^u,  Kv^m.  E. 
T.  For  there  shall  be  a  performance  of  those  things,  zchich  zocre 
told  her  from  the  Lord.  Vul.  Quoniam  perjicientur  ca  qua: 
dicta  sunt  tibi  a  Domino.  To  the  same  purpose  Be.  Netm  con- 
sumtnabuntur  ea  quce  dicta  sunt  ei  a  Domino.  Cas.  differently, 
Pcrfectum  iri  quce  tibi  a  Domino  signijicafa  sunt.  The  in- 
stances in  the  N.  T.  wherein  on  does  not  signify  because,  but 
that,  are  very  many.  The.  understands  it  so  in  this  place.  So 
also  does  Gro.  and  some  other  expositors  of  name.  It  must,  at 
the  same  time,  be  acknowledged,  that  the  words  are  susceptible 
of  either  interpretation.     The  reasons  which  have  induced  me  to 

YOL.    IV.  ^^ 


262  NOTES  ON  CH.  I. 

prefer  the  latter  are  the  following.  After  zrinvu,  when  a  clause 
is  subjoined  representing  the  thing  believed,  it  is  invariably  in- 
troduced by  ori^  which  in  those  cases  cannot  be  rendered  other- 
wise than  that.  See  Mt.  ix.  28.  Mr.  xi.  23,  24.  J.  xi.  27.  42. 
siii.  19.  xiv.  10,  11.  xvi.  27.  30.  xvii.  8.  21.  xx.  31.  I  have,  for 
the  sake  of  brevitj',  referred  only  to  examples  which  occur  in 
the  Gospels.  2dly,  The  person  or  subject  believed  is  always 
subjoined,  unless  there  be  something  in  the  preceding  words 
which  show  clearly  what  it  is.  Now  there  is  nothing  here  in 
the  preceding  words  which  can  suggest  what  was  believed.  It 
is  then  highly  probable,  that  it  is  contained  in  the  words  suc- 
ceeding. 3dly,  That  this  clause  expresses,  not  the  reward  of 
belief,  but  the  thing  believed,  is  probable  from  this  considera- 
tion, that  Elizabeth  had  doubtless  in  view  the  superiority  of 
Mary,  above  her  own  husband  Zacharias,  inasmuch  as  the  for- 
mer readily  believed  the  heavenly  messenger,  which  the  latter 
did  not.  Now,  if  Elizabeth  meant  to  point  out  the  superior  fe- 
licity of  Mary,  on  account  of  her  faith,  she  would  never  have 
specified  a  circumstance  which  happened  equally  to  her  who  be- 
lieved, and  to  him  who  did  not  believe  ;  for  to  both  there  was  a 
performance  of  those  tilings  which  had  been  told  them  from  the 
Lord.  It  would  have  been  rather  inopportune  to  mention  this 
circumstance  as  the  special  reward  of  her  faith,  though  very  ap- 
posite to  subjoin  it  as  the  subject. 

-■  Some  have  thought  that  the  words  ■^xpoc,  Kf/»y,  in  the  end, 
are  better  connected  with  r£A£/(W5-<?,  and  that,  therefore,  roig  XeXx- 
XTiuevotr,  xvTy  should  be  included  between  commas.  When  the  effect 
is  equal  in  respect  of  the  sense,  the  simplest  manner  of  constru- 
ing the  sentence  ought  to  be  preferred.  Admitting  then,  that 
■syupx  Kupia  may  be  properly  conjoined  either  with  reXeiaa-if^  or 
with  A£A«;ijj^eve/5  uvr>),  it  is  preferable  to  adopt  the  construction 
which  suits  the  order  of  the  words,  where  there  is  no  special  rea- 
son for  deserting  that  order.  The  phrase,  Mz'ng'.y  spoken  or  pro- 
mised to  het'y  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  it  was  the  Lord 
who  spoke  them,  even  though  he  be  mentioned  as  the  author  of 
the  events  ;  but,  in  speaking  of  the  performance  of  things  promis- 
ed by  the  Lord,  it  is  manifestly  implied,  that  the  Lord  hath  per- 
formed them.  A  promise  is  performed  only  by  the  promiser. 
This  is,  therefore,  better,  as  it  is  a  fuller  expression  of  what  is 
admitted  on  all  sides  to  be  the  meaning.  One  would  almost 
think  of  some  critics,  that  they  dislike  an  exposition,  because  it 


CH.  I.  S.  LUKE.  263 

is  obvious,  and  prefer  one  palpably  worse,  which  requires  some 
transposition  of  the  words.  To  transpose  the  words  is  some- 
times necessary  in  explaining  these  writings,  but  the  presump- 
tion is  always  against  the  transposition,  when  the  words,  as  they 
lie,  yield  as  good  and  as  pertinent  a  meaning. 

49.   JVhose  name  is  venerable^  >^  Uym  re  ova^ot  a,'jrii.     Diss. 
VI.  p.  IV.  §  9,  &c. 

51.  Dispelleih  the  vain  imaginations  of  the  proud^  Siso-Ko^Trt- 
c-£v  u7re^>]0civii(;  hciMcia  y.cc^^ixi  etvTm.  Vj.  T.  He  hath  scattered  the 
proud  in  the  imagination  of  their  hearts.  Gro.  justly  observes 
that  this  is  a  figurative  manner  of  expressing.  He  scattereth  the 
proud,  as  to  uhat  concerns  the  thoughts  of  their  hearts  ;  that  is, 
their  vain  imaginations.  "  Dissipavit  superbos  quod  consilia 
"  cordis  ipsorum  attinet."  Maldonat  says,  (o  the  same  purpose, 
"  Dispersit  superbos  mente  cordis  sui,  pro  dispersit  cogitationes 
*'  cordis  superborum,  id  est,  ipsorum  consilia  etmachinationes." 
With  the  Hellenist  Jews  it  is  not  unusual  in  such  canticles  to 
express  general  truths  or  observations,  which  have  no  relation 
to  any  particular  time,  by  the  aorist.  See  the  song  of  Hannah, 
1  Sam.  ii.  1,  &c.  in  the  Sep.  version,  which  bears  a  resemblance 
to  this  of  Mary.  I  have  in  tliis  version  employed  the  present,  as 
better  suited  to  the  genius  of  our  language. 

54,  55.  He  supporteth  Israel  his  servant  (as  he  promised  to 
our  fathers),  ever  inclined  to  mercy  toicards  Abraham  and  his 
race,  avre^x^ero  lo-^ouX  TrxiS'f^  uvth,  fMYio-B'iivot.i  eXsm  (^xmScji;  fAaPiJjs-t 
7r^^  T«5  TTdTi^xi  j}';MA»v)  Tnj  AS'^otajM.  ^  TO  G-7rB^iA.ix.Ti  civra  «5  rev  tttuvx. 
E.  T.  He  hath  holpett  Jiis  servant  Israel,  in  remembrance  of  his 
mercy  ;  as  he  spake  to  our  fathers,  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed 
for  ever.  There  can  hardly  be  a  reasonable  doubt  that  there  is, 
in  this  passage,  an  infringement  of  the  natural  order.  Such  a 
construction  as  eXxXtj^e  tt^^  rui  Trctre^xg,  rco  aS^ux/a,  is,  to  the 
])est  of  my  remembrance,  unexampled  in  these  writings.  AH 
tiie  correction  in  the  pointing  necessary  in  Gr.  for  avoiding  this 
singular  construction,  is  very  simple.  If  we  include  y^adui  iXx. 
M^i  TT^^  rui;  TTxTi^xi;  ijtuov  in  a  parenthesis,  the  apparent  solecism 
is  totally  removed.  But  the  irregular'syntax  in  the  sentence,  as 
commonly  read,  which  has  often  been  remarked  by  the  critics, 
is  not  the  only  objection  to  it.  The  expression  is  not  agreeable 
to  the  style  of  Scripture  on  those  subjects.  In  relation  to  the 
promises.  God  is  very  often  said,  in  general,  to  have  spoken  to 


264  NOTES  ON  tu.'i, 

the  fathers,  or,  in  particular,  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  ;  but 
never  to  Abraham  and  his  posterity-  That  those  promises  con- 
cern the  posterit}  is  plain,  and  is  often  mentioned  :  but  it  is  no- 
where said  that  they  were  spoken  to  them.  The  very  addition 
of  the  ^vords /or  ever,  «?  rev  atmst,  shows  the  same  thing,  to  wit, 
that  their  connection  is  not  with  iXa,Xrio-e,  but  with  /n.v;j5-3;5v«<  iXem- 
Some  editors,  sensible  of  this,  though  not  sensible  of  the  irregu- 
larity of  the  construction,  as  the  passage  is  commonly  interpret- 
ed, or  of  the  impropriety  cf  the  expression  now  taken  notice  of. 
have  included  all  between  iXmi  and  «?  tov  onmu.  in  a  parenthesis. 
These,  by  their  manner  of  departing  from  the  order  of  \\\g  words 
in  the  explanation  they  give  of  them,  make  a  still  greater  stretch, 
and  a  longer  suspension  of  the  sense,  to  less  purpose. 

^  To  remember  mercy  is  not  an  unfrequent  Oriental  idiom, 
for  expressing  to  incline  to  mercy,  to  be  merciful.  See  Fs, 
Sicviii.  3.  cix.  16.     Hab.  iii.  2. 

64.  And  his  mouth  tvas  opened  directlij^  and  his  tongue  loos<~ 
ed,  xvsM^^Ti  ^£  To  s'of^x  TTcifict^^yjf^ix,  ^  ^'  yXuTTot  uvT n .  In  adding  the 
word  loosed^  I  have  followed  the  common  translation.  The  ge- 
nius of  modern  tongues  does  not  always  permit  the  freedom  used 
by  the  ancients.  But  it  sometimes  happens  that,  in  attempting 
to  escape  one  dirtlculty,  a  person  runs,  before  he  is  aware,  into 
a  g) eater.  Eisner  was  so  struck  with  the  incongruity  (as  it  ap- 
peared to  him)  of  the  application  of  unax^»  to  yXuTiroi,,  that,  in 
order  to  avoid  it,  he  has  attempted  to  construe  the  sentence  in  a 
quite  different  manner,  making  one  clause  to  end  with  the  word 
•prctpa.^fiyjfjccc,  and  making  the  noun  yXuTcra.  the  nominative  to  the 
following  verl)  eXxXei.  The  subsequent  member  of  the  sentence, 
according  to  him,  stands  thus,  >^  jj  yXaro-ce.  xvta  >^  eXxXa  ivXoym 
Tsv  ©E9V.  Passing  the  objections  to  which  the  form  of  the  ex- 
pression is  liable  (for  the  examples  he  produces,  in  support  of 
his  hypothesis,  are  far  from  being  similar),  it  is  strange  that  a 
man  of  his  kjiowledge  and  discernment  did  not  discover  that 
■yXuTc-ct  ivXoym  was  incomparably  more  exceptionable  than  the 
expression  against  which  he  objected.  R^phelius  and  others  have 
given  the  most  convincing  evidence,  that  such  idioms  as  a  verb 
joined  to  two  nouns,  related  in  meaning  to  each  other,  to  one  of 
which  alone  the  verb  is  strictly  applicable,  are  warranted  by  the 
"most  approved  classical  authority  in  prose  and  verse.     The  5-/r»t. 


fca.  r.  S.  LUKE.  265 

«j'  oiw  eSovrc^  of  Homer  is  well  known.  Nor  does  that  of  the 
Apostle  greatly  differ.  r^cAst  iu-xi  tToTirx  t^  a  (ip^f^oi^  which  is 
literally  in  Eng.  /  ?nadc  i/uii  drink  milk  and  not  meat,  I  Cor. 
iii.  2.  This  sounds  rather  more  harshly  to  us  than  the  literal 
version  of  the  text  under  examination.  Then  were  opened  his 
mouth  and  his  tongue.  But  we  see  that  even  critics,  sometimes, 
rather  than  acknowledge  in  the  sacred  penmen  a  negligence  of 
expression,  not  without  example  in  the  best  writers,  will  find  it 
necessary  to  admit  a  blunder  hardly  to  be  met  with  in  the  worst. 

67.  Prophesied,  7rpo£(Pi}T£VTs.  I  have  retained  the  word: 
though,  in  the  Jewish  idiom,  toprophesu  admits  of  several  senses. 
Amongst  others,  it  often  means  to  express  the  devout  sentiments 
to  which  a  particular  occurrence  gives  rise,  in  such  a  song  of 
praise  as  that  which  he  has  subjoined.  It  must  be  owned,  how. 
ever,  that,  in  this  canticle,  there  are  somethings  which,  in  strict 
propriety,  are  prophetical,  according  to  the  acceptation  of  the 
term  prophcci/,  in  our  language.  This  is  an  additional  reason  for 
retaining  the  word  in  this  place. 

69,  70,  71.  And  (as  andentty  he  promised  bjj  kis  holij  Pro^ 
phcts)  hath  raised  a  Prince  for  our  deliverance,  in  the  house  of 
David  his  servant  ;  for  our  deliverance  from  our  enemies,  and 
from  the  hands  of  all  zsho  hate  lis — kxi  eyei^e  x.i^(/,<;  a-uTc^ici  ny-i» 
£V  Ts;  oiKU  Axhi^  ra  ttxi^ix;  avra'  Kciiug  iXdAriTi  oix  s-«,<^5<ra5  ruv  ctyiuv 
rav  ttTr''  uim^  7r^o<p>;rei>v  etvTH,  cruT)]pi(tv  f|  exH'^''  'J/"-^"?  '^  ^^  p^wf^ 
TTd^Tm  rui  f^KTuvTuv  8}V«s.  E.  T.  And  he  hath  raised  up  an  horn 
of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his  servant  David  j  as  he 
spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  ftrophets,  zchich  have  been  since 
the  zoorld  began :  that  zpe  should  be  saved  from  our  enemies, 
and  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us.  All  such  Scripture  songs, 
as  that  from  which  these  words  are  taken,  are  expressed  in  the 
Oriental  poetic  idiom,  resembling  that  of  the  Psalms.  Now,  it 
is  impossible  to  render  these  into  another  language,  with  tolera- 
ble clearness  and  propriety,  without  using  greater  latitude  of 
expression  than  is  necessary  in  translating  plain  prose.  For  this 
reason,  I  have  taken  the  freedom  to  make  here  a  small  alteration 
in  the  arrangement.  The  70th  ver.se  is  a  parenthesis  ;  and,  that 
the  interruption  which  it  gives  to  the  meaning  may,  as  little  as 
possible,  hurt  perspicuity,  I  have  introduced  it  immediately  af.. 
ter  and,  in  the  beginning  of  v.  69.  In  consequence  of  this  trans.. 


266  NOTES  ON  ch.  i.  - 

position,  the  verb  eyu^e  is  more  closely  connected  with  its  regi- 
men a-eoTij^ieiv.  I  have  also  preferred  the  proper  term,  to  the  trope, 
in  the  translation  of  nj^a?.  Horn  of  salvation^  is  both  too  ob- 
scure, and  too  little  suited  to  our  mode  of  speaking,  to  be  fit  for 
admission  into  modern  languages.  When  there  can  be  no  doubt 
about  the  meaning,  a  translator  ought  not  anxiously  to  trace  fi- 
gures which  do  not  suit  the  language  he  is  writing.  Often  a  me- 
taphor, which  has  energy,  and  even  elegance,  in  one  tongue,  is 
both  dark  and  uncouth  in  another.  For  the  greater  clearness, 
I  have  also  rendered  ekxXwe,  j)romised^dL  sense  which  it  often  has 
in  the  prophetic  writings. 

75.  In  piety  and  uprightness^  a  oo-iornri  xxt  ^uMoo-vvfi  ivuTriov 
ctvm.  The  two  last  words  ivcaTrtev  ocvm,  before  him,  that  is,  God, 
are  a  common  Hebraism,  to  denote  that  the  virtues  mentioned 
are  genuine,  as  under  the  eye  of  God. 

78.  IVho  hath  caused  a  light  to  spring  from  on  high  to  visit 
us^  £v  oi$  £7r£(r>ci-<^ocTo  >}  f^oii  uvxroXfi  e|  ii/^ys.  E.  T.  M^  hereby  the 
day-spring  from  oji  high  hath  visited  7is.  The  day-spring  is  an 
expression  rather  indefinite.  If  it  mean  the  dawn,  it  is  too  faint 
an  image  for  the  subject.  It  has  been  observed  by  critics,  that 
avaroAs}  is  the  word  used  by  the  Sep.  in  rendering  the  Heb.  nm 
tsemoch,  which  signifies  a  branch,  or  a  young  shoot,  a  name  by 
which  the  Messiah  appears  to  have  been  denominated  by  some 
of  the  Prophets.  The  word  uvaroXu  is  also  used  sometimes  to 
denote  the  sun.rising  ;  lastly,  it  signifies  the  East,  or  the  quar- 
ter of  the  heavens  in  which  he  rises.  That  it  does  not,  in  this 
place,  answer  to  branch,  the  reason  urged  by  Gro.  Ham. 
and  other  commentators,  is  sufficient  evidence.  It  is  not  natu- 
ral to  speak  of  sending  a  branch,  to  enlighten  those  who  are  in 
darkness,  or  to  direct  their  feet  in  the  way.  If  the  sun,  as  he 
appears  in  rising,  had  been  here  alluded  to,  uvxrt>ij,  would  not 
have  been  without  the  article.  Besides,  it  is  so  far  justly  argu- 
ed, by  Wet.  that  the  rising  sun  cannot  be  here  understood  by 
«votraA-,},  because  the  sun,  when  he  rises,  is  always  in  the  horizon  ; 
whereas  this  light  is  spoken  of  as  coming  from  on  high,  f|  u-^m, 
and  must,  therefore,  be  rather  vertical  than  horizontal.  Now, 
the  word  uvxroP^i]  imports  not  on]yoriens,  but  ortus  ;  and  is  alike 
applicable  to  any  light  newly  sprung  up,  or  appearing.  This 
sense  of  the  word  I  have  adopted  here,  and  endeavoured  to  ex- 
press with  perspicuity. 


CH.  II 


S.  LUKE.  267 


CHAPTER  II. 


1.  All  the  inhabitants  of  the  empire^  7rci<rcti  r^v  eixHf^w-  E.  T. 
All  the  zoorld.    Vul.  Universus  orbis.     Ows^sv;}  means,  strictly, 
the  inhabited  part  of  the  earth,  and  therefore,  -xx^a,  v  oiKHf^-sr^,^  all 
the  icorld,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  phrase.     But  it  is 
well  known,  that  this  expression  was,  in  ancient  times,  frequent- 
ly employed  to  denote  the  Roman  empire.     It  has,  probably, 
been  a  title  first  assumed  by  the  Romans,  through   arrogance, 
afterwards  given  by  others,  through  flattery,  and  at  last  appro- 
priated, by  general  use,  to  this  signification.  That  it  has  a  more 
extensive  meaning,  in  this  place,  is  not,   I  think,  pretended  by 
any.    But  there  are  some  who,  on  the  contrary,  would  confine  it 
still  further,  making  it  denote  no  more  than  Judea  and  its  ap- 
pendages, or  all  that  was  under  the  dominion  of  Herod.    Of  this 
opinion  are  several  of  the  learned,  Binxus,  Beau.  Dod.  Lardner, 
Pearce,  and  others.     In  support  of  it,  they  have  produced  some 
passages,  in  which  this  phrase,  or  expressions  equivalent,  ap- 
pear to  have  no  larger  signification.     Admitting  their  explana- 
tion  of  the  passages  they  produce,  they  are  not  parallel  to  the 
example  in  hand.     Such  hyperboles  are  indeed  current,  not  on- 
ly  in  the  language  of  the  Evangelists,  but  in  every  language.    In 
those  cases,  however,  wherein  they  are  introduced,  there  rarely 
fails  to  be  something,  either  In  what  is  spoken,  or  in  the  occasion 
of  speaking,  which  serves  to  explain  the  trope.     For  example  ; 
the  term,  a  countn/,  in  English,  denotes,  properly  a  region  or 
tract  of  land  inhabited  by  a  people  living  under  the  same  govern- 
ment, and  having  the  same  laws.     By  this,  which  is  the  common 
acceptation,  we  should  say  that  England  is  a  countri).     \  et  the 
term  is  often  used  without  any  ambiguity,  in  a  more  limited 
sense.     Thus,  to  adopt  a  familiar  illustration :   An  inhabitant 
of  a  country  town,  or  parish,   says  to  one  of  his  neighbours, 
speaking  of  a  young  man  and  a  young  woman  of  their  acquain- 
tance, "  All  the  country  says  that  they  are  soon  to  be  married;" 
yet  so  far  is  he  from  meaning,  by  the  phrase,  all  the  country^  all 
the  people  of  England,  that  he  is  sensible  that  not  a  thousandth 
part  of  them  knows  that  such  persons  exist.    He  means  no  more 
than  all  the  village^  or  all  the  neighbourhood.     Nor  is  he  in  the 


268  NOTES  ON  ch.  ii 

smallest  danger  in  speaking  thus,  of  being  misunderstood  by  any 
hearer.  Every  body  perceives  that,  in  such  cases,  the  phrase  has 
a  greater  or  less  extent  of  meaning,  according  to  the  sphere  of 
the  persons  spoken  of.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  should  say, 
"  The  parliament  has  laid  a  tax  on  saddle-horses  throughout  all 
"  the  country  ;"  nobody  could  imagine  that  less  than  England 
were  intended  by  the  term  country,  in  this  application.  Here 
the  term  must  be  considered  as  it  stands  related  to  parliament  \ 
in  other  words,  it  must  be  that  which,  in  the  style  of  the  legisla- 
ture, would  be  named  the  country.  In  like  manner,  though  it 
might  not  be  extraordinary  that  a  Jew,  addressing  himself  to 
Jews,  and  speaking  of  their  own  people  only,  should  employ  such 
a  hyperbole  as  all  the  world,  for  all  Judea,  it  would  be  exceed- 
ingly unnatural  in  him,  and,  therefore,  highly  improbable  that 
he  should  use  the  same  terms,  applied  in  the  same  manner,  in  re- 
lating the  resolves  and  decrees  of  the  Roman  emperor,  to  whom 
all  Judea  would  be  very  far  from  appearing  all  the  world,  or 
even  a  considerable  part  of  it.  Jn  reporting  the  orders  given  by 
another,  especially  a  sovereign,  the  reporter  is  presumed  to  con- 
vey the  ideas,  and  even,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  words,  of  the 
person  or  sovereign  of  w  hom  he  speaks.  Some  have,  not  improba^ 
bly,  supposed,  for  it  is  in  the  manner  of  exact  narrators,  that  the 
words  u.TfayfoiCPiTB'cx.t  rr,v  oMiif*.(Viiv,  were  the  words  of  the  emperor's 
edict,  and  copied  thence  by  the  Evangelist.  I  shall  only  add, 
that  the  Sy.  interpreter,  as  all  the  other  ancient  interpreters,  un- 
derstood  the  words  in  the  same  manner,  nnniN-i  t*oy  nSs  all  the 
people  of  his  (the  emperor's)  dominions.  I  am  not  insensible, 
that  this  opinion  is  liable  to  objections,  from  the  silence  of  his- 
torians and  the  improbability  of  the  thing  :  and  though  these  ob- 
jections do  not  appear  to  me  so  formidable,  as  they  do  to  some 
others,  the  examination  of  them,  severally,  would  lead  into  a 
length  of  discussion  but  ill  suited  to  my  design.  I  shall,  there- 
fore, only  add,  in  general,  that,  for  my  own  part,  I  should  haye 
less  scruple  in  admitting  that,  about  a  point  of  this  kind,  the  ex- 
tent of  the  emperor's  edict  (which  nowise  affects  the  faith  of  a 
Christian),  the  writer  might  have  mistaken,  or  been  misinform- 
ed, than  in  giving  such  forced  meanings,  and  unnatural  construc- 
tion, to  his  words,  as  tend  but  too  manifestly  to  unsettle  all  lan- 
guage, and  render  every  thing  in  words  ambiguous  and  doubtful. 
May  not  that  be  here  called  an  edict,  which  was  no  more  than  a 


ClI.  II. 


S.  LUKE.  269 


declared  purpose^  a  purpose  too  not  to  be  executed  at  once,  but 
gradually,  as  circumstances  would  permit? 

^  Should  be  registered^  uTroypxi^eo-S-ui.  E.  T.  Should  be  taxed. 
Vul.  and  Be.  Describerelur.     Er.    Zu.  and  Cas.    Censeretur. 
Our  translators  have,  in  this  instance,  not  so  properly,  in  my 
opinion,  preferred  (he  three  last.     A7rayf>a,<p£a-^xi  is,  strictly,  to 
he  registered^  or  enrolled  ;  xTortf^MTS-ui,   to  be  taxed.     Almost 
all  the  modern  translations,  I  have  seen,  into   Itn.   Fr.  or  Eng. 
have  adopted  the  former  interpretation.     As  the  register  was 
commonly  made  with  a  view  to  taxing  ;  it  may,  no  doubt,  ia 
many  cases,  be,  with  sufficient  propriety,  rendered  in  the  man- 
ner our  translators,  and  others,  have  done.     However,  as,  in 
this  place,  there  is  some  difficulty,  it  is  better  to  adhere  strictly 
to  the  import  of  the  words.     Though  it  was  commonly  for  the 
purpose  of  taxing  that  a  register  was  made,  it  was  not  always,  or 
necessarily  so.     In  the  present  case,  we  have  ground  to  believe, 
that  there  was  no  immediate  view  to  taxation,  at  least  with  re- 
spect to  Judea.     Herod  (called  the  great)  was  then  alive,  and 
king  of  the  country,  and  though  in  subordination  to  the  Romans, 
of  whom  he  may  justly  be  said  to  have  held  his  croAvn  ;  yet,  as 
they  allowed  him  all  the  honours  of  royalty,  there  is  no  ground 
to  think  that  either,  in  his  life-time,  or,  before  the  banishment 
of  his  son  Archelaus,  the  Romans  would  directly,  by  their  own 
officers,  levy  any  toll  or  tribute  from  the  people  of  Jude^i.   Nay, 
we  have  the  testimony  of  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus,  that 
they  did  not,   till  after  the  expulsion  of  Archelaus,  when  the 
country  was  annexed  to  Syria,  and  so  became  part  of  a  Roman 
province.     But  it  may  appear  an  objection  to  this  account,  that 
it  should  be  considered  in  an  imperial  edict  as  a  part,  in  any  re- 
spect, of  the  Roman  empire ;  and  that  one  should  be  sent,  by  the 
emperor,  into  the  country,  to  make  an  enrollment  of  the  people. 
To  this  I  answer,  that  as  to  the  name  otKHf^m,  though  it  has  been 
shown,  that  it  was  commonly   employed  to  denote  the  Roman 
empire,  we  ought  not  to  interpret  the  name  empire  too  rigidly, 
as  confined  to  the  provinces  under  the  immediate  dominion  of 
Rome.     It  may  well  be  understood  to  comprehend  all  the  coun. 
tries  tributary  to,  or  dependent   on  .Rome.     Now,  there  is  one 
important  purpose  that  such  registers,  even  where  no  tax  was 
imposed,  were  well  fitted  to  answer;  they  enabled  those  haughty 
lords  of  the  world  to  know  the  state  of  their  dependencies,  and 

YOL.    IV.  34 


270  NOTES  ON  cu.  u. 

to  form  a  judgment  both  as  to  the  sums  of  money  which  might 
be  reasonably  exacted  from  their  respective  princes,  and  as  jo 
the  number  of  soldiers  which  might  be  obtained  in  case  of  \<;>r. 
Nor  is  it  at  all  improbable,  that  when  a  census  was  making  oi  the 
empire,  properly  so  called,  the  enrollment  of  the  families  n'ight 
be  extended  to  Judea,  with  a  view  to  the  exaction  of  an  oath  of 
fidelity,  as  Wet.  supposes,  founding  his  opinion  on  a  passage  nf 
Josephus,  and  with  no  design  of  taxing  the  country  then.  Yet 
the  register,  taken  at  that  time,  might  be  afterwards  used  by  the 
Romans,  for  assisting  them  in  levying  a  tax. 

2.   This  first  register  took  effect  when  Cyrenius  zcas  president 

of  Syria^  «vr>i  j?  UTroy^a.tpfi  Trpuryj  eyeveroy  }}ye,u/>vevovroi  rtji  "Zvpiot^  Ku- 

^;;v<».  E.  T.  And  this  taxing  was  first  made,  when  Cyreniu^ 
was  governor  of  Syria.  Vul.  IIcsc  descriptio  prima  facta  est 
aprceside  Syrice  Cyrino.  About  the  import  of  this  verse,  there 
is  a  great  diversity  of  opinions  among  the  critics.  Yet,  when 
Vfe  attend  to  it,  as  it  lies,  without  taking  into  consideration  the 
knowledge  we  derive  from  another  quarter,  we  should  hardly 
think  there  vpere  a  verse  in  the  Gospel  about  which  there  is  less 
scope  for  doubt.  That  which  has  principally  given  rise  to  the 
questions  that  have  been  agitated  on  this  subject,  is  a  passage  in 
Josephus  (Ant.  b.  18.  c.  1.),  from  which  it  appears,  that  the  tax 
levied  by  Cyrenius,  which  was  the  first  imposed  on  the  people 
by  the  Homans,  happened  about  ten  or  eleven  years  after  the 
time  here  spoken  of  by  L. ;  for,  according  to  Josephus,  it  was 
after  the  expulsion  of  Archelaus,  when  Judea  was  reduced  to  the 
condition  of  a  Roman  province.  As,  at  the  time  when  that  his- 
torian wrote,  the  event  was  both  recent  and  memorable,  it  hav- 
ing given  birth  to  an  insurrection  under  Judas  of  Gallilee,  which 
though  soon  quelled  to  appearance,  became  the  latent  source  of 
a  war,  that  ended  in  the  ruin  of  the  nation  ;  it  is  impossible  to 
think  that  that  historian  could  either  have  erred  through  igno. 
ranee,  or  have  attempted  wilfully  to  misrepresent  what  must  have 
been  known  to  thousands  then  living.  We  eannot,  therefore, 
with  Maldonat,  and  others,  cut  short  the  matter  at  once,  by  sa. 
crificing  the  credit  of  the  historian  to  the  authority  of  the  Evan- 
gelist j  because  this  will  be  found,  in  the  issue,  to  do  a  material 
injury  to  the  Evangelist  himself.  Let  us  try,  then,  whether, 
without  doing  violence  to  the  words  of  Scripture,  which,  in  cases  of 
this  kind,  is  too  pften  done,  we  can  explain  them,  so  as  not  to  be 


CH.  II.  S.  LUKE.  271 

inconsistent  with  the  account  given  by  the  historian.  And,  first, 
as  to  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  by  others,  with  the 
same  view  ;  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  mention,  that  some  are  for 
extirpating  this  verse  altogether,  as  an  interpolation.  This  is 
an  expeditious  method  of  getting  rid  of  a  difficulty,  which  I  am 
sorry  to  see  some  learned  men,  in  this  age,  so  ready  to  adopt ;. 
though,  it  must  be  owned,  this  expedient  tends  very  much  to 
shorten  the  critic's  labour.  But  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this, 
that  it  is  a  mere  hypothesis,  and,  I  will  add,  a  most  licentious 
hypothesis,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  pretended,  that  there  is  a  single 
MS.  or  edition,  ancient  translation,  or  commentary,  in  which  the 
verse  is  Avanting.  When  the  thing,  therefore,  is  properly  view- 
ed, we  have  here  a  cloud  of  witnesses,  numerous  and  venerable, 
the  same  by  whom  the  Gospel  itself  is  attested  to  us,  in  opposi- 
tion to  a  mere  possibility.  Of  tho  same  kind  is  the  substitution 
of  Saturninus  or  Quintilius  for  Cyrenius.  Others,  more  mode, 
rate,  attempt  to  remove  the  difficulty  by  a  diflferent  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage,  rendering  it,  after  The.  This  register  zcas 
jnade  before  Cyrenius  teas  governor  of  Syria;  and,  for  this 
sense  and  application  of  the  superlative  w^<yTo?,  for  the  compara- 
tive crfflTf^a?,  examples  are  quoted  from  the  Gospel  of  J.  Thus, 
Tpparoi;  /jlh  ;jv,  He  zoas  before  me,  J.  i.  15.  30.  and  e^e  Trpmrov 
vf/Mv  ftejM,(cr;;)C5v,  It  htttecl  me  before  it  hated  you,  xv.  18.  For 
some  time  paist,  this  solution  of  the  difficulty  appears  to  have  been 
the  most  favoured  by  interpreters,  both  abroad  and  at  home. 
Now,  there  are  several  considerations  which  oppose  the  admis- 
sion of  such  an  idiom  in  the  present  case.  First,  among  the  sa- 
cred writers,  it  seems  to  be  peculiar  to  the  Evangelist  J.  No- 
thing similar  is  found  in  this  Gospel  or  the  Acts,  both  written 
by  L.  nor  in  any  other  writer  of  the  N.  T.  1  see  no  reason  to 
consider  it  as  aa  Hellenistic  idiom,  being  without  example  in  the 
Sep.  Nor  can  it  be  called  Oriental,  as  the  Orientals  have  nei- 
ther comparatives  nor  superlatives,  but  express  the  meaning 
of  both  by  periphrasis.  Secondly,  The  expressions  are  not  si- 
milar. In  such  anomalous  phrases,  the  discovery  of  the  sense 
depends  on  the  strictest  observance  of  the  arrangement,  n^^/ras, 
in  the  instances  quoted,  is  immediately  prefixed,  like  a  preposi- 
tion, to  the  word  it  governs  :  thus,  vpuro^  jm,»,  vpurov  If^m, — 
whereas,  here,  it  is  separated  from  the  word  governed,  Kv^tivtu^ 
both  by  the  verb  iyevtre^  and  by  other  terms  intervening.  Thirdly, 


272  NOTES  ON 


cu.  It* 


if  the  Evangelist  meant  to  tell  us  that  this  register  was  prior 
to  another  taken  by  Cyrenius,  he  ought  to  have  said,  ■TrpuT),  t;?? 
{juTcoypa^m']  Kvpttvia.  And  if  he  meant  to  tell  us  that  it  was 
before  Cyrenius  Mas  governor,  he  ought  to  have  said,  either  Traw. 
rvj  TH  ijycf^ovevHv  Kvpijviov,  or  Trpartj  tj)?  i^ysiMvixi  Kvptifia.  In  no  case, 
therefore,  can  the  examples  quoted  from  J.  serve  to  authorize  a 
construction  every  way  so  irregular  as  this  of  L.  is,  on  their  hy. 
pothesis.  I  will  add,  fourthly,  that,  in  regard  to  the  quotations 
from  J.  though  the  expression  is  not  strictly  grammatical,  it  has 
that  simplicity  and  plainness  which  warrant  us  to  affirm,  that  it 
readily  suggests  the  meaning  to  every  attentive  reader.  With 
respect  to  this  passage  of  L.  Ave  may  justly  affirm  the  reverse, 
that  no  person  ever  did,  or  could,  imagine  the  interpretation 
devised,  who  had  not  previously  heard  of  an  inconsistency  which 
the  obvious  interpretation  bore  to  the  report  of  the  Jewish  histo- 
rian, and  who  was  not  in  quest  of  something,  in  the  way  of  ex- 
planation, which  might  reconcile  them.  The  hypothesis  of  the 
learned  and  indefatigable  Dr.  Lardner,  to  whose  labours  the 
Christian  world  is  so  highly  indebted,  is  not  without  its  difficul- 
ties.    But  of  this  presently. 

^  Hy£|t4ev5ii«vT«?— Kt;/))5v/y.  There  are  two  questions  to  which 
this  participle  gives  rise ;  one  concerning  the  import  of  the  word 
^yifM)v\  the  other  concerning  the  intention  of  the  participial  form 
^yifMHvovToi  here  employed.  As  to  the  first,  it  is  evident  that 
^yefMif,  in  the  language  of  the  N.  T.  is  not  peculiarly  appropri- 
ated  to  the  president  of  a  province,  but  is  used  with  a  good  deal 
of  latitude,  being  given  also  to  the  imperial  procurators,  such  as 
Pontius  Pilate,  and  even  to  the  prefects,  who  had  the  principal 
charge  of  any  business.  It  is  in  this  sense,  perhaps,  that  it  is 
here  applied  to  Cyrenius  (or,  as  Tacitus  calls  him,  Quirinius), 
■who  certainly  was  not,  in  Herod's  lifetime,  president  or  gover- 
nor of  Syria.  But,  on  this  point,  I  do  not  find  any  difference 
amongst  interpreters.  As  to  the  second,  it  is  made  a  question, 
whether  ^yef^nvovrog  ought  to  be  understood  as  the  genitive  ab- 
solute of  the  participle,  and,  consequently,  as  intended  to  ex- 
press the  time  when  the  event  mentioned  took  place  ;  or,  as  equi- 
valent to  the  appellative  ijyefimy  and  serving  merely  as  a  title  de- 
rived from  an  office,  which  Cyrenius,  some  time  or  other,  either 
before  or  after,  possessed,  and  being  in  the  genitive,  as  agreeing 
with  Kvpma,  which  is  governed  by  cc7roy^<t<p>!.  Those  who  construe 


JH.  11. 


S.  LUKE.  273 


the  sentence  in  this  manner,  render  it  thus  :  This  was  the  first 
assessment  of  Cyrenius  governor  of  Syria.  It  is  this  mode  of 
interpretation,  which  has  been  adopted  by  Lardner,  as  to  which 
I  beg  leave  to  offer  to  the  reader's  consideration  the  following 
reflections.  It  cannot  be  doubted  the  participle  present  often 
supplies  the  place  of  an  appellative  ;  but,  in  such  cases,  if  I  re- 
member right,  it  is  the  uniform  practice  to  distinguish  it  by  the 
article.  Thus  it  is  :  o  fixTrn^av,  o  Trc-t^ctt^eov^  a  ccv«,yiva,<rKCifi.j  01  oix.0^ 
iefiiivTei,  ot  x.v^t(vovT£(;,  On  the  contrary,  when  the  participle  is 
used  as  a  participle,  and  particularly,  when  it  is  in  the  genitive 
absolute,  it  has  not  the  article.  Should  it  be  argued,  that  it 
must,  nevertheless,  be  a  noun  in  this  place,  because  it  governs 
the  genitive," and  not  the  case,  of  the  verb;  I  answer,  that  the 
same  circumstance  (not  unusual  in  Gr.)  takes  place  in  all  the 
examples  shortly  to  be  produced,  as  to  which,  there  never  was 
any  doubt  that  the  words  were  to  be  understood  merely  as  par- 
ticiples in  the  genitive  absolute.  Secondly,  no  way  can  be  more 
proper  for  attaining  the  sense  of  an  author,  in  places  where  it 
may  be  doubtful,  than  by  comparing  those  with  similar  expres- 
sions in  other  places  of  that  author,  about  which  all  interpreters 
are  agreed.  Now,  there  cannot  be  a  greater  similarity  in  con. 
struction,  than  that  which  the  beginning  of  the  following  chapter 
bears  to  the  verse  under  examination  :  'Hye/Mvevovroi;  n«vT/«  na«- 
Tn  Trii  ladctixi^  xui  TeT^ocf^hvToi  rtj^  rxXiXxicci;  'H^uaa,  'ixXtTTTFH  ^s  ra 

o-uvta  Tjjs  Ab/A;5»J!5  riT^ct^^iiVToi — eyivero  ^tjf^cc  ©fjf  iti  lucivytjv.  There 
cannot  be  a  greater  coincidence  in  syntax,  than  there  is  in  the 
two  passages  now  compared,  insomuch  that,  if  there  be  no  ambi- 
guity in  the  original  of  the  passage  quoted  (and  I  have  never 
heard  it  said  that  there  is),  neither  is  there  (notwithstanding  the 
learned  doctor's  remark)  any  ambiguity  in  the  original  of  the 
passage  under  examination.  The  similarity,  in  both,  is  strik- 
ing, upon  the  slightest  attention.  The  present  participles  in  the 
genitive,  without  the  article,  the  first  of  these  participles,  sj'y^/o- 
vivevTog,  the  same  in  both,  and  all  of  these  governing  the  genitive, 
and  not  the  accusative,  the  occasion  of  introducing  these  circum- 
stances also  similar.  Now,  it  was  never  questioned  that  the  par- 
ticiples in  the  beginning  of  the  third  chapter,  are  merely  parti- 
ciples in  the  genitive  absolute,  employed  solely  for  ascertaining 
the  time  when  John's  ministry  commenced.     I  shall  bring  an.Q- 


374  NOTES  ON  ch.  ir. 

ther  example  from  the  same  author,  which  is  also  similar  in  every 
circumstance,  (Acts  xviii.  12.) ;  r«sA>i«»va?  Se  ctv.%n-»T£vt)vroi  ryjg 
Ax^ixij  KKT£7r£?-ii(rM  ot  iH^utoi  TO)  Wctv'Koi  When  Gallio  ZEds 

proconsul  of  Achaia,  the  Jews  made  insurrection  against  Paul' 
This  is  no  Hellenistic  idiom  of  tlie  Evangelist,  it  is  perfectly 
classical;  bzrctTtvovrtav  being  often  used  by  the  Gr.  writers  of 
Roman  affairs,  as  corresponding  to  consul/bus  in  La.  for  mark- 
i\ig,  by  the  names  of  the  consuls  in  office,  the  date  of  an  event 
or  transaction  mentioned.  The  remark,  therefore,  that  names 
of  office,  and  participles  supplying  the  place  of  such  names,  do 
not  always  imply  that  the  office  was  possessed  at  the  very  time 
to  which  the  action  or  event  refers,  though  certainly  true,  is  not 
applicable  to  the  case  in  hand.  The  words,  expressed  in  the 
precise  manner  above  explained,  can  be  neither  names  of  office, 
nor  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  such  names,  but 
participles  of  the  present,  specially  intended  for  fixing  the  cir- 
cumstance of  time.  I  cannot,  therefore,  admit  this  hypothesis 
of  Lardner  (though  at  first  inclinable  to  it),  without  infringing 
the  common  rules  of  Syntax,  and  doing  injury  to  the  qaanner  of 
the  sacred  writer  ;  I  may  rather  say,  to  his  meaning,  manifestly 
shown,  from  instances  in  other  places  entirely  similar.  Further, 
had  it  been  the  Evangelist's  intention  to  signify  that  the  register 
was  made  by  Cyrenius,  the  proper  expression  would  have  been 
^578  Kv^Tjvis ;  for,  in  that  case,  it  would  have  clearly  been  (what 
it  must  have  been  the  writer's  intention  to  represent  it)  the 
register  only  of  the  empire  tjj?  o/jc«j«.ev;)?,  executed  by  Cyre- 
nius. One  would  think  that  the  author  of  the  Vul.  had  found 
the  preposition  in  the  Gr.  MS.  he  used,  as  we  read,  in  his  trans- 
lation, a  prceside  Syria;  Cjjrino.  But  some  critics  of  the  La. 
Church,  particularly  Maldonat,  reject  tlie  preposition  as  in- 
terpolated. Si.  evidently  suspects  it,  and  observes  that,  in  the 
margin  of  som.e  MS.  La.  Bibles,  it  is  corrected  in  the  notes  call, 
ed  correctoria.  Now,  as  this  reading  has  no  countenance  from 
Gr.  MSS.  aneient  commentaries,  or  printed  editions,  it  is  enti- 
tled to  no  regard.  And,  if  it  were,  the  only  difference  it  would 
make  on  the  sentence  is  this :  the  present  reading  implies  no 
more,  than  that  the  event  happened  during  the  presidency  of  Cy. 
renius,  the  other  would  denote  also  that  it  was  done  by  him  ; 
for  5}'y£;M«v£yavra5,  without  the  article,  would  still  be  a  participle, 
and  not  a  noun. 


cu.  II.  S.  LUKE.  275 

^  On  all  these  accounts,  I  approve  more  the  way  suggested  by 
Wet.  for  removing  the  difficulty,  by  the  explanation  of  the  verb 
<yev£To,  than  by  putting  the  construction  to  the  torture,  to  wrest 
a  meaning  from  the  sentence  which  otherwise  it  would  never  yield. 
It  is  certain,  that  the  verb  yivts-S'xi  has,  in  the  N.  T.  other  senses, 
beside  the  most  common  ones,  to  be,  to  become,  to  be  made,  to 
be  born,  to  h.appeii.  And  of  those  other  meanings,  less  usual, 
but  sufficiently  warranted,  the  most  applicable  here  is,  to  take 
effect,  to  produce  its  ordinary  consequences.  An  example  of 
this  sense  we  have,  Mt.  v.  18.  i*?  sev  Txpi^.h  «  «^«»(^  x.m  «  7^,  ia>. 
r«  £v  it  fi,tx  ntpxioi  a  f*.ifi  TrxfiXSvj  xtto  r«  vstty  £»5  «»  tcxhtx  yir/irai  : 
rendered  in  this  version  ;  Sooner  shall  heaven  and  earth  perish^ 
than  one  iota,  or  one  tittle  of  the  laze  shall  perish,  without  at-- 
taining  its  end.  The  last  clause  is  to  the  same  purpose  in  the 
ii..  T.  Till  all  be  fulfilled.  From  the  connection  of  the  verse 
with  that  immediately  preceding,  it  is  evident  that  the  verb  yivta-- 
5-«<  is  used  in  the  one,  in  the  same  sense  with  7rMpu<rxi  in  the 
other  ;  hk  tiXOov  tcxTuXva-xt  x>^x  v>.r,pu-xi.  For  the  import  of  the 
word  vMpoxj-xi  in  that  passage,  ice  the  note  in  this  version.  We 
have  another  example  in  the  same  Gospel,  vi.  10.  v;?  ir^Tu  ro  3-e. 
MiA,x  a-a,  Thy  voill  be  done  /  that  is,  take  effect,  be  executed- 
The  same  phrase  occurs  also,  xxvi.  42.  L.  xi.  2.  and  nearly  the 
same,  xxii.  42.  i^.^  ro  B-!?aii:<,x  f^av,  «aa«  to  tov  yevsa-^M.  Again,  Mt. 
xviii.  19.  our  Lord,  speaking  of  the  request  which  two  or  three 
of  his  disciples  shall  agree  in  making,  says,  yevT^criTxi  xvroti,  it 
shall  be  accomplished  for  them,  it  shall  have  the  desired  effect. 
I  shall  produce  but  one  other  example,  1  Cor.  xv.  54.  rore  yevr,- 
tt-erxi  Xoy®^  0  yeypx/^uev^,  KxtbttoSij  0  Bavccr®^  c-i<;  vik(^:  Then 
that  saying  of  scripture  shall  be  accomplished,  Death  is  szcaL 
lolled  up  of  victory.  Now,  let  it  be  remarked  that,  in  the  most 
common  acceptation  of  the  verb  yi^oi^xi,  a  law  is  made,  yty^rxi, 
when  it  is  enacted,  not  when  it  is  obeyed ;  a  request,  when  it  is 
presented,  not  when  it  is  granted  ;  a  promise,  when  it  is  given,  not 
when  it  is  performed ;  a  prediction,  when  it  is  announced, rfiot 
when  it  is  fulfilled.  Yet  it  is  in  the  latter  only,  though  less  com- 
mon meaning,  that  the  verb,  in  all  the  instances  above  produced, 
is,  by  the  concurrent  voice  of  all  interpreters,  to  be  understood. 
-There  is  only  one  small  point  in  which  this  solution  appears  to 
differ  from  that  given  by  Wot.  lie,  if  I  mistake  not,  retains  the 
ordinary  meaning  of  the  verb  ynovMi,  and,  in  defence  of  the  ex- 


^'ra  IVOTES  ON  ch.  ii. 

pression,  argues,  that  it  is  usual  to  speak  of  a  thing  as  done  by 
that  person  by  whom  it  was  finished,  although  it  had  been  begun 
and  carried  on  by  others.  But  to  say  that  a  business  enjoined 
so  early  by  Augustus,  was  performed  so  long  after  by  Cyrenius, 
or  during  his  government,  gives  immediate  scope  for  the  ques- 
tion, '  Where  was,  then,  the  necessity  that  Joseph  should  make 
'  a  journey  to  Bethlehem,  to  be  registered,  with  Mary  his  espous- 
'  ed  wife,  ten  or  eleven  years  before  ?'  And  even  if  it  should  be 
expressed  that  the  business  was  at  that  time  completed,  it  might 
seem  strange  that,  in  a  country  no  larger  than  Judea,  the  exe_ 
cution  of  this  order  should  have  required  so  long  a  time.  In  the 
way  I  have  rendered  it,  both  objections  are  obviated  :  the  regis. 
ter  (whatever  was  the  intention  of  it)  was  made  in  Herod's  time, 
but  had  then  little  or  no  consequences.  When,  after  the  depo- 
sition  and  banishment  of  Archelaus,  Judea  was  annexed  to  Sy- 
ria, and  converted  into  a  province,  the  register  of  the  inhabitants, 
formerly  taken,  served  as  a  directory  for  laying  on  the  census^ 
to  which  the  country  was  then  subjected.  Not  but  that  there 
must  have  happened  considerable  changes  on  the  people  during 
that  period.  But  the  errors  which  these  changes  might  occasion 
could,  with  proper  attention,  be  easily  rectified.  And  thus,  it 
might  be  justly  said,  that  an  enrolment  which  had  been  made 
several  years  before,  did  not  take  effect,  or  produce  consequen- 
ces worthy  of  notice,  till  then.  This  solution  does  not  differ, 
in  the  result,  from  that  given  by  Whiston,  and  approved  by  Pri- 
deaux,  but  it  differs  in  the  method  of  educing  the  conclusion, 
amongst  other  objections  to  which  Whiston's  method  is  exposed, 
one  is,  that  if  the  sense  of  aToy^aipij  had  been  as  unconnected  with 
that  of  the  yerh-  u7ro'y^x<pi>f^ix.i,  in  the  preceding  verse,  as  he  makes 
it,  the  historian  would  not  have  introduced  it  with  the  demon- 
strative pronoun,  and  said,  'Avrt}  «  «xayf«d)!j,  which  plainly  re- 
fers us,  for  its  meaning,  to  the  verb,  its  conjugate,  he  had  imme- 
diately used.  This,  upon  the  whole,  is  my  opinion  of  this  puz- 
zling  question.  It  is,  however,  proper  to  observe,  that  I  offer 
it  only  as  what  appears  to  me  a  plausible  way  of  solving  the  dif- 
ficulty, without  violating  the  syntax  ;  but  am  far  from  having 
that  confidence  in  it  wherewith  some  critics  express  themselves 
concerning  solutions  which,  to  speak  moderately,  are  not  less  ex- 
ceptionable. 


CH.  n. 


S.  LUKE.      ■  277 


7.  Laid  him  in  a  manger,  un^xm.  «t.r«v  .v  r,  <^xrr,.     Bishop 
Pearce  is  of  opinion,  that  by  the  word  <p.r.,  is  here  meant  a  bag 
of  coarse  cloth,  like  those  out  of  which  the  horses  of  our  troop- 
ers  are  fed  when  encampod.     This  bag  he  supposes  to  have  been 
fastened  to  the  wall,  or  some  other  part,  not  of  th.  stable,  but 
of  the  guest-chamber,  or  room  for  the  reception  of  strangers, 
where  Joseph  and  Mary  were  lodged,  in  wh.ch  guest-chamber 
intended  solely  for  accommodating  "^^^^^  ''f'^Z']^     Z 
cattle,  there  was  a  manger,  but  there  was  nobed ;  and  th.s  obi  g- 
ed  Mary  to  have  recourse  to  the  manger  for  laymg  her  cluld  m^ 
What  could  have  led  a  man  of  Dr.  Pearce's  ab.ht.es  to  adopt  an 
hypothesis  so  ill  compacted,  as  well  as  unsupported    .t  is  not 
easy  to  conceive.     Perhaps  a  strong  prejudice  against  the  notion 
thai  the  mother  of  our  Lord  should,  on  that  occasion,  have  had 
no  better  accommodation  than  what  a  stable  could  afford.     But 
in  all  such  cases,  the  reflection  ought  ever  to  be  present  to  our 
minds,  that  what  we  are  inquiring  into  is  not  a  matter  of  theory 
but  a  point  of  fact;  concerning  the  evidence  of  whicii,  we  shall 
never  be  capable  of  judging  with  impartiality,  if  we  have  allow, 
ed  our  minds  to  be  preoccupied  with  vain  conceptions,  in  rela. 
tion  to  fitness  and  dignity,  of  which  we  are  not  competent  judges 
If,  along  with  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact,  there  be  nothing  that 
contradicts  the   manifest  principles   of  the  understanding     or 
shocks  that  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  which  is  the  law  of  God 
written  on  our  hearts,  we  ought  to  be  satisfied.     For  that  there 
should  be  things  astonishing,  or  even  unaccountable,  in  transac- 
tions  so  far  superior  to  every  other  object  of  our  meditations   is 
what  we  ought  in  reason  to  expect,  ever  remembering,  that  t^od  % 
thoughts  are  not  our  thoughts,  nor  are  our  ways  his  ways.     IMr. 
Harmer,  [see  Observations  vol.  i.  p.  442.  ed.  2d.]  says,  that  as 
the  horses  in  the  East  eat  chiefly  barley,  they  do  not  eat  it  out  ot 
a  manger,  as  with  us  (for  they  have  no  mangers),  but  out  of  bags 
of  haircloth,  which  are  hung  about  their  heads  for  that  purpose. 
From  this  observation  of  Bishop   Pearce's,  Dr.  Priestley  has  ▼ 
drawn  a  conclusion,  in  a  great  measure  the  reverse,  to  wit,  that 
they  were  all  in  a  stable,  but  that  there  is  no  mention  of  a  man- 
ger of  any  kind,  the  word4.^r.,,  on  his  hypothesis,  meaning  only 
stable.  That  the  word  ^-rv«  means  stable,  or  rather  stall,  as  well  as 
manner,  is  admitted.     Manger  seems  to  have  been  the  original 
signification,  and  the  other  meaning,  stall,  to  have  arisen  from  a 


von.   IV. 


278  .  NOTES  ON  '  cii.  n, 

synecdoche  of  a  part  for  the  whole,  as  in  La,  tectum  is  sometimes, 
used  for  domus,  and  puppis  iov  navis  ;  or,  as  in  Eng.  sail  for 
ship.  But,  abstracting  from  all  other  considerations,  the  words 
of  the  original  are  unfavourable  to  that  philosopher's  interpre- 
tation ;  c6V£)c?fi-;ev  oivrov  ev  tjj  <^*tvj}  obviously  implies,  that  this  was 
the  place  wherein  the  child  was  laid,  and  whereby  he  was  dis- 
tinguished in  point  of  place,  not  only  from  those  without  doors, 
but  from  those  within.  The  Doctor  has  indeed  attempted  to  give 
such  a  turn  to  the  words,  as  may  make  ev  rt;  (^ccr\^  relate  in  com- 
mon to  all  the  three  preceding  verbs,  ercKiv,  ea-Tra^yavioa-a,  and 
«v£)cA<vfv ;  but,  with  what  success,  must  be  submitted  to  the  learn- 
ed. To  mention  the  laying  of  a  child,  without  saying  where,  is 
a  very  blank  sort  of  information  :  and  when  the  place  is  named, 
we  expect  it  to  be  what  particularly  marks  the  situation  of  the 
child,  and  not  what  he  has  in  common  with  those  who  thus  dis- 
pose of  him,  and  perhaps  with  many  others.  If  Mary  had  borne 
Jesus  in  her  own  house,  would  it  have  been  natural  to  say.  She 
brought  forth  her  first-born  son,  and  swathed  him,  and  laid  him, 
without  adding  a  word,  such  as  in  a  cradle,  or  on  a  couch,  to  de- 
note where  ?  But  if,  for  explanation,  it  had  been  added  simply  m 
the  house ^  ov there,  we  should  have  surely  thought  the  whole  clause 
exceedingly  superfluous  ;  for  who  can  suppose  that  she  would 
have  taken  him  to  another  house  ?  It  strengthens  my  argument, 
that  the  word  (pxrvT)  occurs  again  twice  in  this  chapter,  and  is 
always  connected  with  the  position  of  the  child,  )t«;ttevov  £»  tj?  ^«t- 
v!j.  Nor  can  it  be  said  with  truth  that  tv  n)  (pctrvt]  may  relate 
equally,  as  Dr.  Priestley  explains  it,  to  all' who  had  been  nam- 
ed. If  the  word  xh^cevov  had  not  been  subjoined  to  ^^e(p'^,  I 
should  admit  the  plausibility  of  this  exposition  ;  but  the  parti- 
ciple KHu.evav,  as  has  been  observed,  requires  some  such  supple- 
ment, and  consequently  appropriates  what  follows  as  the  full 
expression  of  the  situation  of  the  babe.  But  to  return  to  bishop 
Pearce's  exposition :  on  what  authority  a  bag  made  of  goat's 
hair  is  believed  to  have  been  called  tpccrv)},  he  has  not  thought  fit 
to  inform  us.  The  like  contrivance  amongst  ourselves,  though 
very  common,  we  never  call  a  manger.  The  very  quotations 
produced  by  Dr.  Pearce  confute  his  hypothesis.  Homer  repre- 
sents the  horse  as  chained  to  the  (famj;,  and  getting  loose  from  it 
only  by  breaking  his  chain.  Could  he  mean  to  say,  that  he  had 
been  secured  by  being  bound  to  a  haircloth  bag,  and  not  to 
something  which  he  could  not  carry  off?    The  quotation  from 


CH.  ir.  S.  LUKE.  ■  279 

Virgil  is  precisely  of  the  same  kind,  ahrupfis  fugit  prcesepia 
vinclis.  Those  bags,  Harmer  tells  us,  are  hung  about  the  heads 
of  the  cattle  ;  but  surely  they  could  never  occasion  (he  breaking 
of  either  chain  or  halter.  It  may  be  asked.  What  shall  we  say 
then  to  the  authorities  produced  by  Harmer,  to  wit,  D'Arvieux, 
Thevenot,  and  Sir  John  Chardin,  who  affirm,  that  they  use  no 
tnangers  in  the  East,  unless  we  bestow  that  name  on  the  coarse 
bags  above  described  ?  We  will  say  that  we  admit  the  testimony 
of  these  witnesses,  as  evidence  not  only  of  what  they  saw  them- 
selves, but  of  what  was  then  customary  in  the  countries  which 
they  visited.  At  the  same  time,  we  do  not  admit  it  as  an  evi. 
dence  of  what  had  been  the  practice  there,  seventeen  hundred 
years  before,  especially  when,  as  to  the  more  ancient  usages,  we 
have  direct  testimony  that  they  were  different.  There  is  here  no 
opposition  of  testimony.  We  find,  therefore,  no  difficulty  in 
believing  both.  The  one  concerns  the  practice  of  the  sixteenth, 
seventeenth,  and  eighteenth  centuries,  the  other  that  of  the  first 
century  alone.  To  obviate  this,  it  has  been  affirmed,  and  is 
doubtless  true,  that  the  Asiatics  are  not  so  changeable  as  the 
Europeans,  in  what  regards  their  manners  and  customs.  But 
were  we  to  conclude  thence,  that  they  never  change  at  all,  we 
should  err  more  widely  than  if  we  should  believe  them  as  fickle 
as  ourselves.  The  difference  is  only  in  degree.  I  have  had  oc- 
casion, in  the  Preliminary  Dissertations,  to  indicate  and  to  trace 
some  of  the  changes  which  have  obtained  in  opinions,  in  man. 
ners,  and  customs,  and  even  in  the  import  of  words.  Man  is 
naturally  mutable,  and  mutability,  in  some  degree,  cleaves  to 
every  thing  that  is  human.  It  is  indeed  impossible  that  the  re- 
volutions (or  changes  affecting  whole  kingdoms  and  states)  to 
which  Syria  and  the  neighbouring  countries  have  been  subjected, 
should  not  have  produced  great  and  numerous  alterations  in  all 
the  respects  above-mentioned.  Their  conquerors  too,  in  diffe- 
rent ages,  have  mostly  been  nations  exceedingly  different  from 
one  another,  both  in  political  principles  and  in  religious  ceremo-^i 
nies,  the  Chaldeans,  the  Persians,  the  Grecians,  the  Romans,  the 
Arabians,  and  last  of  all  the  Turks.  Are  changes  in  govern- 
ment, such  as  these,  compatible  with  a  perfect  uniformity  in  their 
fashions  and  customs  ?  No  certainly.  Let  it  not,  however,  be 
imagined  that  I  mean  to  depreciate  such  observations  as  those  of 
Harmer-     This  is  far  from  my  intention.     I  know  that,  in  many 


280  .  NOTES  ON  ch.  ii. 

cases,  they  may  be  very  useful,  and  several  of  those  made  by  that 
learned  author,  undoubtedly,  are  so;  but  all  obserTations  of 
that  kind  are  then   most  safely  applied,  when  they  throw  light 
upon  a  passage  of  Scripture  which,  misled  by  our  own  customs, 
we  find  obscure  ;  and  not  when  they  serve  to  darken  what  is  ex- 
pressed both  plainly  and  explicitly.     If  a  present  custom  in  the 
East,  applied   to  any  ancient  fact  recorded,  makes  a  passage 
clear  which  is  otherwise  inexplicable,  it  is  a  very  strong  pre- 
sumption,  and  in  some  cases  eA^en  a  proof,  that  their  present  is 
the  continuation  of  their  ancient  practice.     But  let  it  not,  on 
the  other  hand,  be  founded  on  as  an  axiom,  that  whatever  is 
used  at  present  in  that  part  of  the  world  was  always  so,  or  that 
whatever  was  once  their  fashion,  is  the  fashion  with  them  stilly 
than  both  which  nothing  can  be  more  evidently  false.     As  to  the 
point  in  question,  the  word  ^otrv;?  is  used  in  the  Sep.  as  the  ver- 
sion of  a  Heb.  word,  which  manifestly  denotes  the  manger,  crib, 
or  vessel,  in  a  stable,  out  of  which  the  cattle  eat.     The  Heb. 
D13N  ebus,  which  is  so  rendered,  appears,  both  from  etymology 
>nd  from  use,  to  be  of  this  import.     See  Job  xxxix.  9.  Is.  i.  3. 
Prov.  xiv.  4.     The  same  may  be  said,  with  truth,  of  the  Syriac 
word  «niN  auria,  by  which  it  is  translated  in  that  ancient  version ; 
and  as  to  the  Gr.  term  Phavorinus  says,  *fl£Tvj;  ttcc^x  th  (peifyav  ym- 
rxi.     But  though  enough  has  been  said  to  remove  so  slight  a 
presumption  founded  on  their  present  customs,  I  shall,  on  this 
article,  give  positive  evidence,  both  that  the  practice  was  in  Asia, 
in  ancient  times,  to  feed  their  cattle  out  of  mangers,  or  vessels 
made  of  durable  materials,  as  stone,  wood,  or  metal,  and  that  it 
was  actually  in  such  a  vessel  that  our  Lord  was  laid.  First,  that 
mangers  were  used   in  Asia,  particularly  by  the  Persians,   of 
whom  Harmer  tells  us,  from  Thevenot,  that  at  present  they  have 
in  their  stables  no  such  implement ;  the  authority  of  Herodotus 
will  put  beyond  dispute.     In  relating  the  final  victory  obtained 
by  the  Greeks  over  the  Persians,  and  the  total  expulsion  of  the 
latter  out  of  Greece,  he  acquaints  us  that  the  tent  of  Mardonius, 
the  commander  in  chief  of  the  Persian  army,  was  pillaged,  and 
that  there  was  found  in  it  a  brazen  manger  for  his  horses,  which, 
on  account  of  its  singular  beauty,  was  presented  to  the  goddess 
Alea  Minerva,  in  whose  temple  it  was  deposited.    His  words  are 
\\.  ix.J,  Tfisi  c-x)?y»!y  m  Muc^^ovta  tirai  \T eye7ircci~\  crxv  of  ^icc^TrxirctvTei, 
rec  re  uXXct  £|  civTiji  f^  Tr,v  ^«tv;}v  tuv  tzj-srtuv  catrxv  y,x>oc.£iiv  Trxirxv  s^  ^aa 
«|<i)V'   ri))>  f«£v  vnv  <p»Tyt)v  txvtijv  t;jv  Mx^^ovia  xn6e(rxv  eg  rev  ytjov  tjk  AAt;)? 


cu.  n. 


S.  LUKE.  2«1 


A6>i\iM>K.  Nobody  will  pretend  that  the  historian  could  mean 
that  Mardonius  carried  about  with  him  a  brass  stable  for  his 
horses,  which  the  Greeks  found  in  his  tent.  Every  circumstance 
of  the  story  adds  to  the  credibility  of  the  fact,  but  more  especial. 
ly  of  that  point  with  which  alone  my  argument  is  concerned. 
We  have  here  the  testimony  of  an  historian  worthy  of  credit, 
particularly  in  matters  which  fell  within  his  own  knowledge, 
which,  when  he  wrote,  were  recent  in  respect  of  time,  and  in  re- 
spect of  place,  transacted  on  the  most  public  theatre,  at  that 
time,  in  the  world  ;  a  testimony,  besides,  with  the  best  means  of 
confuting  which,  if  it  had  been  false,  he  furnished  his  contempo- 
raries, by  telling  them  where  this  curious  peice  of  furniture  was 
to  be  seen.  Now,  let  it  be  observed,  that  this  story  is  still 
stronger  evidence  that  the  Persians  were  then  accustomed  to  the 
use  of  mangers,  than  it  is  of  the  particular  fact  related.  Had  it 
answered  any  purpose  to  the  historian  to  tell  a  falsehood,  he 
would  never  have  contrived  a  falsehood  notoriously  contradicto- 
ry to  the  Persian  customs,  at  that  time  well  known  in  Greece. 
Neither  could  he  himself  be  ignorant  of  their  customs.  Not  to 
mention  his  extensive  knowledge,  he  was  an  Asiatic,  a  native  and 
citizen  of  Halicarnassus,  a  city  of  Caria  in  Asia  Minor,  and  con- 
sequently in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Persian  dominions.  To 
this  testimony  I  shall  add  that  of  Justin  Martyr,  the  first  of  the 
Fathers  after  the  disciples  of  the  Apostles  ;  he  wrote  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  He  says  expressly,  that  when 
Joseph  could  find  no  place  in  the  village  of  Bethlehem  to  lodge 
in,  he  betook  himself  to  a  cave  near  it,  and  that,  when  they  were 
there,  Mary  bore  the  Messiah,  and  laid  him  in  a  manger.  His 
words  are  [Dial,  cum  Tryphone],  ETret^ctv  Ima-Ticp  ax.  ax^v  £v  t;;  xa. 
f*>]  txar^  zra  KXTaXvirxi,  U  g-tfi^Xxiu  rtvt  a-vvcyyvg  Ttig  xufajg  xuTi^^vcrsj  x} 
rare  ccvrav  ovTaiv  ekm,  ereTex,»  V  Mccpix  rov  ;%jf <rov  x^  ev  (pxrv,}  xvrov  ere- 
6hxh.  Now,  nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  here  the 
©■TjjAat/ov,  where  Joseph  and  Mary  were  lodged,  is  distinguished 
from  the  (pcfrnj  where  she  laid  the  infant.  Such  natural  caves  >as 
could  in  a  strait  afford  shelter  both  to  men  and  cattle,  were  not 
uncommon  in  that  country  ;  and  a  principle  of  humanity  or  of 
hospitality,  for  which  the  ancients  were  remarkable,  might  in- 
fluence  the  people  to  bestow  some  labour  upon  them,  in  order  to 
render  them  more  commodious.  This,  at  least,  is  not  an  im- 
plausible way  of  accounting  for  their  finding  a  manger,  and  per- 
haps some  other  conveniences,  in  such  a  place.      But,  whatever 


282  NOTES  ON  '  ch.  ii. 

be  in  this,  for  I  am  nowise  interested  to  promote  tlie  credit  of 
the  tradition,  though  lery  ancient ;  and  though  Origen,  who 
wrote  in  the  third  century,  confirms  it,  telling  us,  that  at  Beth- 
lehem they  showed  the  cave  wherein  Jesus  was  born,  and  the 
manger  in  the  cave  wherein  he  was  swathed  (contra  Celsum, 

sv  5j  eG-Tt-x^yoivaSri)  ;  from  these  testimonies  it  is  very  evident,  that 
in  those  days  such  implements  in  a  stable,  as  we  call  mangers, 
were  well  known,  and  in  common  use  in  Judea.  P'or,  let  it  be 
remembered,  that  Justin  was  a  native  of  Palestine,  having  been 
born  in  Neapolis  of  Samaria,  the  city  which,  in  Scripture,  is 
called  Shechem  and  Sichar.  Origen  also  had  lived  some  time 
in  the  country.  In  which  way  soever,  therefore,  we  ynderstand 
the  story  of  the  cave,  related  by  Justin,  as  a  fiction,  or  as  a  fact, 
it  is  a  full  proof  that  they  were  not  then  unacquainted  with  the 
use  of  mangers. 

^  In  the  house  allotted  to  strangers,  ev  ru  KXTctXvf*.xTt.  E.  T. 
In  the  inn.  I  shall,  here,  not  only  for  the  vindication  of  the  ver- 
sion, but  for  the  further  illustration  of  the  whole  passage,  make 
a  few  observations  on  the  houses  built  in  the  East,  for  the  recep- 
tion of  strangers.  Busebequius,  ambassador  at  the  Porte,  from  the 
emperors  Ferdinand  and  Maximilian,  a  man  well  acquainted 
Avith  the  Turkish  polity  and  manners,  both  in  Europe  and  in 
Asia,  where,  on  the  public  service,  he  had  also  occasion  to  be, 
mentions  (Epis.  1.)  three  sorts  of  houses  built  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  travellers.  The  first  is  the  caravansary,  the  most  con- 
siderable, and  that  which,  from  its  external  magnificence,  is  the 
most  apt  to  attract  the  attention  of  strangers.  It  is,  says  Busbe- 
qnius,  a  verj/ large  builditig  ;  commonly  lighted  from  the  top, 
either  by  sky-lights,  or  by  a  spacious  dome,  which  serves  for  or- 
nament, as  well  as  use.  Into  this  edifice,  which  is  all  under  one 
roof,  and  has  no  partitions,  all  travellers,  and  their  cattle,  are 
admitted  promiscuously.  The  only  division  in  it,  is  an  area  in 
the  middle  for  the  servants,  the  beasts,  and  the  baggage,  enclos- 
ed with  a  parapet,  tiiree  feet  high,  which  is  so  broad  as  to  reach 
the  wall  of  the  house  on  every  side,  and  thus  to  form  a  stone 
bench  all  along  the  walls,  for  accommodating  the  travellers,  and 
raising  them  above  the  level  of  the  horses,  camels,  and  mules. 
This  bench  is  commonly  from  four  to  six  feet  broad.  There  are 
chimneys,  at  proper  distances,  in  the  walls.     Every  little  party 


CH.  II. 


S.  LUKE  28S 


has  such  a  proportion  of  this  bench,  with  a  chimney,  as  must  serve 
for  kitchen,  parlour,  and  bed-chamber.  They  use  the  provi- 
sions which  they  bring  with  them,  or  which  they  purchase  in  the 
place.  At  night  the  saddle-cloth,  and  their  own  upper  garments, 
commonly  serve  for  bed-clothes,  and  the  saddle  for  a  pillow. 
The  public  supplies  (hem  only  in  lodging.  The  account  given 
by  (his  Imperial  minister,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  does  not  ma- 
terially dilfer,  in  any  thing,  from  what  is  related  by  Tournefort, 
and  other  travellers  of  the  present  age.  Busbequius  calls  the 
second  sort  of  public  house  A't,'«o</oc/t/»;«,  which,  he  says,  is, 
only  to  be  found  in  a  few  places.  The  former  is  intended  chief- 
ly for  the  accommodation  of  those  travelling  companies,  called 
car'avans^  from  which  it  derives  its  name  ;  the  latter  receives  no 
cattle,  nor  are  the  strangers  huddled  together  as  in  the  caravan- 
sary, but  are  decently  accommodated  in  separate  apartments, 
and  supplied  at  the  public  charge  for  three  days,  if  they  choose 
to  stay  so  lojig,  in  moderate  but  wholesome  food.  The  third  he 
calls  stabulum,  and  of  this  kind  he  mentions  some  as  very  capa- 
cious, though  not  so  magnificent  as  the  caravansary.  Here  also 
the  travellers  and  their  cattle  were  under  the  same  roof,  and  not 
separated  by  any  partition-wall  from  each  other.  Only  the  for- 
mer possessed  the  oue  side,  which  had  at  least  one  chimney,  and 
the  latter  the  other.  When  he  himself,  in  travelling,  was  forced 
to  put  up  with  such  quarters  (for  this  sometimes  happened),  he 
tells  us  tliat  he  made  the  curtains  of  his  tent  serve  for  a  partition 
between  him  and  the  other  travellers.  Now,  of  the  three  sorts, 
it  is  probable  that  these  two  only,  the  xenodochium  and  the  sta- 
hiduni^  were  known  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Indeed  the  first 
mentioned,  the  caravansary^  appears  no  other  than  an  improve- 
ment of  the  stabuliim,  the  plan  being  much  enlarged,  and  per- 
haps a  few  accommodations  added  ;  of  all  which  it  is  likely  that 
the  annual  pilgrimages  to  Mecca,  after  the  establishment  of  Ma- 
homctism  in  the  East,  first  suggested  the  necessity.  Of  the 
two  other  kinds  there  appear  such  traces  in  Scripture  as  rendeil^ 
it  at  least  credible  that  they  were  both  in  common  use.  The 
xtcToXvfMi  mentioned  twice  by  this  Evangelist,  once  by  Mr.  and 
occurring  sometimes  in  the  Sep.  answers  to  the  xenodochium  of 
Busbequius ;  the  Trxv^o^eiov  of  L.  in  conformity  to  its  name,  cor- 
responds to  the  stabuliim  of  theother.  It  is  accordingly  so  ren- 
dered in  the  Vul.  whereas  divcrsorium  is  that  bv  which  »f!«r«. 


284  NOTES  ON  cH.  II 

>it;^5s  is  rendered  in  that  translation.  All  the  later  translators 
into  La.  Er.  Ar,  Zu.  Cas.  and  Be.  less  properly  confound  these 
words,  rendering  both  diversorium.  In  cases  of  this  kind,  im. 
mediately  depending  on  the  customs  of  a  country,  the  old  trans- 
lator who,  from  his  vicinity  in  time  and  place,  had  the  best  op- 
portunity of  knowing  the  customs,  is  entitled  to  the  preference. 
It  deserves  our  notice  also,  that  the  ancient  Sy.  never  confounds 
the  two  words.  In  this,  therefore,  I  agree  with  Bishop  Pearce, 
that  Trdv^o^uov  and  Y.a,rct,\vu.ix,  are  not  synonymous.  As  the  same  dis- 
tinction, however,  does  not  obtain  with  us  which  obtained  with 
them,  we  have  not  names  exactly  corresponding  ;  but  there  is 
resemblance  enough  in  the  chief  particulars  to  make  the  term 
?'««,  a  tolerable  version  of  the  word  ;t«v<J'<j;^j£<ov  but  not  of  x«T«Ay- 
j«.3s;  for  that  cannot  be  called  an  inn  where  the  lodgers  are  at  no 
charges,  which  was  most  probably  the  case  of  the  KUTctXvfA.x.  It 
was  necessary  that  there  should  be  at  Jerusalem,  whither  the 
three  great  festivals  brought  regularly,  thj-ice  in  the  year,  an  im- 
mense concourse  of  people,  very  many  of  the  former  kind,  the 
x,xTxXvfAot,Tic.  There  was  but  one  KuTx^vf^cx,  it  seems,  at  Bethle- 
hem, a  small  village,  and,  when  Joseph  came  thither,  it  was  full. 
For  this  reason,  the  pious  pair,  if  they  did  not  betake  themselves 
to  the  cave,  according  to  the  tradition  above  mentioned,  must 
have  had  recourse  to  the  homely  harbourage  of  a  'Trxvhx.eiot,  or 
stabuhtm.  This,  in  my  opinion,  removes  every  difficulty,  and 
is  perfectly  consistent  with  every  circumstance  related  by  the 
Evangelist.  The  place  was  not  properly  a  stable,  in  our  sense 
of  the  word,  a  house  only  for  cattle,  but  was  intended  for  sup- 
plying travellers,  as  to  this  day  they  are  supplied  in  the  East, 
with  both  stable  and  lodging  under  the  same  roof.  Nor  did  it 
belong  to  what  is  called  the  KxrxXvi*.ci,  the  house  allotted  for  the 
reception  of  strangers,  with  which  it  had  no  connection.  They 
werediiTerent  kinds  of  what,  in  old  language,  were  called  hostel. 
rlcs,  and  quite  independent  on  each  other.  By  this  explanation, 
without  needing  to  recur  to  a  cave  without  the  town  (an  hypo- 
thesis liable  to  some  obvious  objections),  we  can  admit  Wet.'s 
reasoning  in  all  its  force.  ''  If,"  says  he,  "  the  manger  was  a 
"  part  of  the  stable,  and  the  stable  a  part  of  the  inn,  he  who  had 
"  room  in  the  stable  had  room  in  the  inn.  When  Luke,  there- 
"  fore,  says,  that  there  was  no  room  for  them  in  the  inn,  he 
'?  shows  that  the  stable  was  unconnected  with  the  inn."     The 


CH.  n.  S.  LUKE.  285 

pains  that  has  been  taken  by  some  learned  men  to  furnish  our 
Lord  and  his  parents  on  this  occasion  with  better  quarters,  I 
cannot  help  thinking,  savours  somewhat  of  that  ancient  prejudice 
called  the  scandal  of  the  cross,  which  has  clung  to  our  religion 
from  the  beginning,  and  which,  in  the  first  ages,  produced  all  the 
extravagancies  of  the  Doceta?,  and  many  others.  This  prejudice, 
wherever  it  prevails,  displays  a  wonderful  dexterity  in  removing, 
or  at  least  weakening,  those  circumstances  in  the  history  of  our 
Lord,  which  are,  in  the  world's  account,  humiliating.  It  is  an 
amazing  conceit,  in  a  man  of  Wet.'s  abilities,  to  fancy  that 
there  was  more  dignity  in  our  Lord's  being  born  in  a  cave  than 
in  a  stable ;  because,  forsooth,  the  fables  of  idolaters  represent 
Rhea  as  having  brought  forth  Jupiter  in  a  cave.  "  A  cave," 
says  he,  "  has  something  in  it  venerable  and  divine,  whereas 
"  nothing  is  more  despicable  and  rustic  than  a  stable."  A?itrurn 
nobis  Illiquid  venerundum  et  divinum  :  stabulum  vera  humile  et 
rusticum  repreesentat.  To  remarks  of  this  kind,  so  unsuitable  to 
the  spirit  of  our  religion,  it  is  suflicient  to  answer  in  the  w^ords 
of  our  Lord  [L.  xvi.  IS.J,   To  ev  ott^puTrot^  ti^lAov,  ^^iXvyfuc  cvuttiov 

9.  A  divine  glory,  ^o^x  Kv^m.  E,  T.  The  glory  of  the  Lord. 
It  was  a  known  figure  among  the  Hebrews,  to  raise,  by  the  name 
of  God,  the  import  of  any  thing  mentioned,  to  the  highest  degree 
possible.     See  the  note  on  verse  40th. 

14.  In  the  highest  heaven,  cv  Ci^troii.  E.  T.  In  the  highest. 
It  is  not  agreeable  to  the  Eng.  idiom  to  use  an  adjective  so  inde- 
finitely as  the  word  highest,  without  a  substantive,  would,  in 
this  place,  be.  When  it  is  employed  as  a  name  of  God,  the  con- 
text never  fails  to  show  the  meaning,  and  thereby  remove  all  ap- 
pearance of  impropriety.  As  the  Jews  reckoned  three  heavens, 
the  highest  was  considered  as  the  place  of  the  throne  of  God. 
When  we  find  it  contrasted  with  earth,  as  in  this  verse,  we  have 
reason  to  assign  it  this  meaning:  the  one  is  mentioned  as  the  ha.*^ 
bitation  of  God,  the  other  as  that  of  men.  This  is  entirely  in 
the  Jewish  manner.  God  is  in  heaven,  and  thou  upon  the  earth 
(Eccl.  V.  2.)  Thy  will  be  done  upon  the  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven 
(Mt.  vi.  10.).  The  plural  number  is  used  in  the  original,  be- 
cause the  Ileb.  word  for  heaven.is  never  in  the  singular.  The 
only  place  in  the  O.  T.  where  the  phrase  ev  Cili^ei^  is  employed 

VOL.    IT.  3fi 


286  NOTES  ON 


CH.  ir. 


by  the  70,  is  Job,  xvi.  19.  in  which  it  is  eTidently  used  in  the- 
Siitne  sense  as  by  the  evancrelist  here. 

-  Peace  upon  the  earthy  and  good  zcill  towards  men.,  nrt  yr^ 
f'fijr^,  a  ccy0^co7roii  cjoiKix.  Vul.  In  terra  pax  hominibus  buncr 
voluntatis.  The  La.  version  is  evidently  founded  on  a  diflferent 
reading  of  the  original.  Accordingly,  in  the  Al.  and  Cam.  MSS. 
but  in  no  other,  we  find  tv^oKix^  in  the  genitive.  The  Go.  and 
the  Sax.  are  the  only  translations  which,  Mith  the  Vul.  favour 
this  reading.  Since  the  passage,  as  commonly  read,  admits  a 
meaning,  at  least  as  clear  and  apposite  as  that  which  we  find  in 
the  Vul.  and  as  the  authorities  which  support  the  former  are  in- 
comparably superior,  both  in  number  and  in  value,  to  those 
which  favour  the  latter,  it  is  plain  that  no  change  ought  to  be 
made.  I  do  not  think  it  an  objection  of  any  weight  against  the 
common  reading,  that  the  copulative  is  wanting  before  the  last 
member.  It  would  have  some  weight  in  simple  narrative,  but  in 
a  doxology,  such  as  this,  has  none  at  all.  The  Sy.  indeed,  has  the 
conjunction  prefixed  to  this  clause  as  well  as  to  the  preceding  ; 
but  as  there  is  not  for  this  the  authority  of  any  Gr.  MS.  it  has 
probably  been  inserted  by  the  translator,  merely  to  render  the 
expression  more  complete.  In  the  way  the  passage  is  rendered 
in  the  Vul.it  is  difficult  to  say,  with  any  degree  of  confidence, 
what  is  the  meaning.  The  most  likely,  when  we  consider  the 
ordinary  import  of  the  words  in  Scripture,  is  that  which  may  be 
expressed  in  this  manner,  peace  upon  the  earth  to  the  men  whom 
God  favoiireth.  This  sense,  however,  it  must  be  owned,  does 
but  ill  suit  the  context,  in  which  the  angels  are  represented  as 
saying,  that  the  good  news  which  they  bring  shall  prove  matter 
of  great  joy  to  all  the  people.  It  ought  surely,  in  that  case,  to 
have  been  said  only  to  some  of  the  people,  namely,  to  those 
whom  God  favoureth.  That  none  can  enjoy  true  peace  whom 
God  does  not  favour,  is  manifest ;  but  then,  by  the  first  expres- 
sion, we  are  taught,  that  God,  in  sending  the  Messiah,  favours 
all  the  people ;  by  the  second,  that  he  favours  only  a  part. 
Though  these  different  sentiments  may,  perhaps,  on  different 
views  of  the  subject,  both  be  justified  ;  yet,  as  there  is  nothing 
here  to  suggest  a  different  view,  the  most  consistent  interpreta- 
tion is  the  most  probable.  The  peace  of  good  will,  which  hl~ 
shop  Pearce  has  proposed  in  interpreting  the  words,  is  an  un. 
-sci-iptural,  and  I  even  think,  unnatural,  e.vpression. 


cH.  ir. 


S.  LUKE.  287 


19.  Weighing^  trvfJL^^ctxXHTcc,  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Conferens.  Cas. 
to  the  same  purpose,  Pcrpendens.  Eisner  has  produced  a  num- 
ber of  examples  from  Pagan  authors,  to  prove  that  the  word  o-vu.- 
^ctX^nTx  may  be  here  most  fitly  rendered  into  La.  Mentem  eorum 
probe  assecuta,  having  attaiped  the  understanding  of  them.  lie 
is  in  this  followed  by  Palairet :  only  the  latter  prefers  rendering 
the  word  more  simply,  intelligens^  understanding  them.  Ra- 
phelius  has  shown  that,  if  we  were  to  inspect  the  places  whence 
Eisner's  examples  were  taken,  Ave  should  find,  both  from  the 
sentence  itself,  and  from  the  context,  that  the  verb  is  at  least  as 
susceptible  of  one  or  other  of  these  significations,  to  zceigh,  to 
compare^  to  conjecture,  as  of  that  which  he  gives  it.  I  confess, 
that  to  me  it  appears  much  more  susceptible  of  this  sense  than 
of  the  other.  Wet.  seems  to  have  been  of  the  same  opinion.  Af- 
ter producing  many  similar  quotations,  from  Grecian  authors, 
which  manifestly  yield  a  good  and  apposite  meaning  so  interpret- 
ed, he  concludes  with  observii^g,  "  De  conjectoribus  et  inter- 
"  pretibus  somniorum  oraculorumque  dicitur."  Here  I  cannot 
avoid  making  a  few  observations  on  the  manner  in  which  autho- 
rities are  sometimes  alleged  by  critics.  Tiiey  seem  to  think  that, 
if  the  words  of  a  quotation,  taken  by  themselves,  make  sense, 
when  interpreted  in  the  way  they  propose,  it  is  suflicient  evidence 
that  they  have  given  the  meaning  of  tlie  author  in  that  place. 
Now  this  is,  in  reality,  no  evidence  at  all.  That  such  an  inter- 
pretation yields  a  sense,  is  one  thing,  that  it  yields  the  sense  of 
the  author,  is  another.  Of  two  different  meanings,  the  chief  con- 
sideration, which  can  reasonably  ascertain  the  preference,  is, 
when  one  clearlj'  suits  the  scope  of  the  author,  and  the  connec- 
tion of  the  paragraph,  and  the  other  does  not.  Yet,  if  the  sen- 
tence may  be  considered  independently,  it  may  make  sense  either 
way  explained.  That  this  is  the  case  with  Eisner's  examples, 
wherein  the  verb  a-vft.Sx?i^etv  is  equally  capable  of  being  translat. 
ed  to  guess,  as  to  understand,  I  should  think  it  losing  time  to 
illustrate.  The  judicious  critic,  when  he  considers  the  connec-1^ 
tion,  will  find  them,  if  I  mistake  not,  more  capable  of  being  ren- 
dered in  the  former  way  than  in  the  latter.  They  all  relate  to 
dreams  and  oracles,  concerning  which  the  heathens  themselves 
admitted  that  there  could  be  no  certain  knowledge.  I  observe, 
2dly,  That  in  criticising  the  inspired  writers,  whose  manner  is, 
in  many  respects,  peculiar,  I  should  think  it  exceedingly  ob- 


588  NOTES  ON  ch.  ir. 

Tious,  that  the  first  recourse  for  authorities  ought  to  be  to  the 
writer  himself,  or  to  the  other  sacred  penmen  who  employ  the 
word  in  question  [Diss.  IV.  §  4 — 8.]  The  only  writer  in  the 
N.  T.  who  uses  the  verb  o-vfJ^ccXXo)  is  L.  In  five  places,  beside 
this,  he  has  employed  it ;  but  in  none  of  the  five,  will  it  admit 
the  sense  which  Eisner  assigns  it  here.  The  same  thing  may  be 
affirmed,  with  truth,  concerning  those  passages  wherein  it  occurs 
in  the  Sep.  and  the  Apocrypha.  Need  I  add,  that  the  Sy.  ver. 
sion,  which  renders  the  word  in  this  place  hdpcd  perfectly  agrees 
with  the  Vul.  ?  Indeed,  as  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned,  I  do  not 
recollect  to  have  observed  any  ditference  among  translators;  and 
that  even  Mary  did  not  understand  every  thing  relating  to  her 
son,  we  learn  from  the  50th  verse  of  this  chapter.  I  shall  only 
further  observe  in  passing  (but  I  do  not  lay  any  stress  on  this  as 
an  argument),  that  it  is  not  in  the  manner  of  the  sacred  writers 
to  celebrate  the  abilities  of  the  saints,  but  their  virtues.  When, 
ever  they  commend,  they  hold  forth  truth  an  object  of  imitation 
to  their  readers.  The  understanding  of  this  excellent  personage 
was  merely  an  ability  or  talent ;  but  her  weighing  every  thing 
that  related  to  this  most  important  subject,  and  carefully  treasur. 
ing  it  up  in  her  memory,  was  an  evidence  of  her  piety,  and  of  the 
ardent  desire  she  had  to  learn  the  things  of  God.  This  is  a  thing 
imitable  by  others  ;  but  neither  natural  acuteness  of  understand- 
ing, nor  supernatural  gifts,  can  properly  be  objects  of  imitation 
to  us. 

22.  Their  purification^  KctOxpic-f^a  uvrm.  E.  T.  Her  purifica^ 
lion.  Vul.  Purgationis  ejus.  In  a  very  few  Gr.  copies,  there 
is  a  diversity  of  reading.  The  Cam.  and  three  others  of 
less  note,  for  avrm  read  aury,  thus  making  it  his  purification. 
The  Com.  which  has  in  this  been  followed  by  Be.  and  the  two 
printers,  Plantin  and  Elzevir,  read  aurij?,  her.  The  Cop.  and  Ara. 
Tersions  omit  the  pronoun  altogether.  Wet.  has  classed  the  Vul. 
as  supporting  the  few  Gr.  MSS.  which  read  «t<r«,  his.^  and  I  can- 
not help  thinking  him  in  the  right.  £;'«*  is  of  itself  equivocal, 
meaning  either  his  or  her.  Which  of  the  two  is  meant,  in  a  par- 
ticular case,  must  always  be  learned  from  the  connexion  of  the 
words.  Now  the  pronoun  is  so  connected  here  as,  by  the  ordi- 
nary rules  of  interpretation,  not  to  admit  another  meaning  than 
his.  Mary  is  not  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse,  nor  even  in 
that  which  preceded  it.     The  last  time  she  is  mentioned  is  in  v. 


S.  LUKE.  28© 

19.  relating  to  a  quite  different  matter.     Jesus  is  mentioned  in 
the  words  immediately  preceding  ;  and  the  same  personal  pronoun 
occurs  in  the  two  verses,  both  before  and  after,  referring  to  him, 
But  the  verses  themselves  in  the  Vul.MiU  make   this  evident 
^without  a  comment.  Et  postquam  consiimmati  sunt  dies  octo,  ut 
circumcideretur  puer,  vomtum  est  nomen  ejus  Jesus,  quod  vo- 
catum  est  ab  angelo,  priusquam  in  utero  conciperetur.   Et  post. 
quam  impleti  sunt  dies  purgationis  ejus  secundum  legem  Moyst, 
tulerunt  ilium  in  Jerusalem,  ut  sisterent  eum  Domino.  Be  this 
however,  as  it  will,  all  the  translations  from  the  Vul.  which  I 
have  seen,  consider  ejus,  as  in  this  place,  feminine.     Where  the 
question,  what,  in  our  judgment,  the  expression  should  be,  and 
not  what  it  actually  is  (questions  often  confounded  by  the  cri- 
tics)    I  should,  for  obvious  reasons,  strongly  incline,  as  others 
have  done,  to  read  ^.r,?,  her,  in  preference  to  all  other  readings. 
But  I  must  acknowledge  that,  upon  examination,  it  appears  to 
be  that  readme  which,  of  all  those  above  mentioned,  has  the  least 
support  from  positive  evidence.    I  should  rather  say,  it  has  none 
at  all.    Not  a  single  MS.  is  there,  not  one  ancient  writer,  or  old 
translation,  if  we  except  the  Vul.  ;  and  how  equivocal  its  testi. 
mony  in  this  place  is,  has  been  shown  already.     For  my  part,  I 
rather  consider  it,  with  Wet.  as  one  witness  for  the  reading  m 
the  Cam.  All  the  evidence  then  is  reduced  to  cardinal  Ximenes, 
who  will  not  be  thought  of  great  weight  with  those  who  consi- 
der the  freedoms  which  he  sometimes  took,  in  order  to  produce 
in  his  Gr.  edition  a  closer  conformity  to  the  Vul.     Be.  does  not 
pretend  the  authority  of  MSS.  for  his  following,  in  this  passage, 
the  Com.     His  only  reason  is  the  incongruity  which  he  found 
in  the  ordinary  reading,  «t.r«v.      Nor  is   it  of  any  weight  that 
some  printers  followed,  in  this,  his  edition.      Let  us  then  consi- 
der briefly,  but  impartially,  those  apparent  incongruities  in  the 
common  reading,  which  make  people  so  unwilling  to  receive  it. 
One  is,  it  is  not  conformable  to  the  style  of  the  law  of  Moses  on 
this  subject.     The  purification  after  child-birth  is  never  called^ 
the  purification  of  the  child,  but  of  the  mother.     Though  this  is 
certainly  true,  it  may  be  justly  affirmed  that  it  is  conformable  to 
the  spirit  of  the  law  to  consider  what  may  be  called  the  legal 
state  of  the  mother,  and  of  the  child  suckled  by  her,  as  the  same. 
Now,  though  the  uncleanness  of- the  mother,  after  bearing  a  male 
child,   lasted   only  seven  days,   she  remained  thirty-three  days 
longer  debarred  from  touching  any  hallowed  thing,  or  goinj; 


290  NOTES  ON  cii.  ii. 

into  the  sanctuary.  Nor  could  the  first-born  male  be  legally 
presented  to  the  Lord,  and  redeemed,  till  he  was  a  month  old  at 
least.  But  as  the  time  was  not,  like  that  of  circumcision,  fixed 
to  a  particular  day,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it  may  have  been  cus- 
tomary,  because  convenient,  for  those  who  lived  at  a  distance 
from  Jerusalem,  to  allot  the  same  time  for  the  purification  and 
the  redemption  (as  was  actually  done  in  this  case),  and  to  con- 
sider the  ceremonies  in  a  complex  view,  as  regarding  both  mo- 
ther and  child.  The  only  other  objection  which  operates  pow. 
erfully  against  the  reception  of  the  common  reading,  is,  that  it 
appears  to  attribute  impurity  of  some  kind  or  other  to  our  Lord 
Jesus,  from  which  he  needed  to  be  cleansed.  But  nothing  is 
more  certain  than  what  is  observed  by  Gro.  that  this,  notwith- 
standing its  name,  implied  no  more  than  certain  restraints  upon 
the  person,  till  after  the  performance  of  certain  rites.  We  are 
apt  to  connect  with  the  notion  of  impurity,  or  the  uncleanness 
described  in  the  ceremonial  law,  some  degree  of  guilt  or  moral 
pravity.  But  this  is  entirely  without  foundation.  There  was  an 
uncleanness  contracted  by  the  touch  of  a  dead  body  ;  but  this  be- 
ing often  unavoidable,  and  sometimes  accidental,  it  was  not  in  any 
sense  a  transgression,  unless  in  a  few  particular  cases.  It  would 
have  been  indeed  a  transgression,  if  voluntary,  in  the  high  priest, 
because  to  him  expressly  prohibited.  Ilis  sacred  functions  re- 
quired that  the  necessary  care  about  the  interment  of  persons  de- 
ceased, though  nearly  connected  with  him,  should  be  committed 
to  other  hands.  The  ordinary  priests,  however,  were  allowed 
to  defile  themselves  for  near  relations.  And,  as  they  were  per- 
mitted, their  defilement,  in  such  cases,  was  no  transgression,  and 
consequently  implied  no  sin.  Nay  more,  in  many  cases,  it  was 
a  man's  duty  to  defile  himself,  in  the  sense  of  the  ceremonial  law. 
Nobody  will  deny,  that  it  was  necessary,  and  therefore  a  duty, 
to  take  care  of  the  dying,  and  to  bury  the  dead.  Yet  this  duty 
could  not  be  performed  without  occasioning  uncleanness.  Nay, 
the  ceremonial  law  itself  required  the  doing  of  that  which  pro- 
duced this  defilement.  The  priest  and  others,  employed  in  sa. 
crificing  and  burning  the  red  heifer,  and  gathering  her  ashes, 
were  all  rendered  unclean  by  what  they  did,  yet  they  were  oblig- 
ed by  law  to  do  it.  Num.  xix.  7,  8.  10.  It  was,  therefore,  in 
some  cases,  a  man's  duty  to  make  himself  unclean.  If,  indeed, 
a  person  in  this  state  had  entered  the  congregation  of  the  Lord, 
or  touched  any  thing  intentionally,  and  without  necessity,  noj 


CH.   II. 


S.  LUKE.  291 


permitted  to  such,  or  had  neglected  to  use,  in  due  time,  the  rites 
of  cleansing,  he  would,  by  this  presumption,  ha\e  rendered  him- 
self a  transgressor,  but  not  by  what  is  called  defiling  himself, 
which  the  ceremonial  law  allowed  in  many  cases,  and  which,  in 
some  cases,  the  moral  law,  or  law  of  nature,  nay,  even  the  cere- 
monial law,  required. 

23.  Every  male  who  is  the  first. horn  of  his  mother,  «-«v  oc^a-ev 
hxvoiyov  f^tiTooiv.  Dod.  Every  first-born  male.  I  should,  proba- 
bly, have  adopted  this  expression  of  Dod.  as  briefer,  if  there  did 
not  appear  an  ambiguity  in  it,  which  is  not  in  the  other.  A  son 
may,  not  improperly,  be  called  the  first-born  male,  who  is  born 
before  all  the  other  male  children  of  the  family,  notwithstanding 
that  there  may  have  been  one  or  more  females  born  before  him. 
And  if  I  mistake  not,  we  frequently  use  the  phrase  in  this  mean- 
ing. But  such  a  child  is  not  x^frev  ^ixvoiyov  /^r^^v,  and,  conse. 
quently,  not  a  male  who  is  the  first-born  in  the  sense  of  this 
law,  which  takes  place  only  when  the  first  child  which  a  woman 
bears,  is  a  male.  There  is  the  greater  reason  for  remarking  the 
difference,  because  the  Jews,  themselves,  made  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  first-born,  when  it  denotes  the  heir  or  person  entitled 
to  a  double  portion  of  his  father's  estate,  and  to  some  other  pri- 
vileges ;  and  the  first-born,  when  it  denotes  a  person  who  is  con- 
secrated to  God  by  his  birth,  and  must  in  due  time  be  redeemed. 
Such  were,  upon  the  old  constitution,  before  God  selected  for 
himself  the  tribe  of  Levi  in  their  stead,  destined  for  the  priest- 
hood. Now^,  this  sacred  prerogative  did  not  always  coincide 
with  the  civil  rights  of  primogeniture.  Unless  the  child  was  at 
once  the  first-born  of  his  mother,  and  the  eldest  son  of  his  father 
in  lawful  wedlock,  he  was  not  entitled  to  the  civil  rights  of  the 
first-born,  or  a  double  portion  of  the  inheritance.  He  might- 
nevertheless,  be  a  first-born  son  in  the  religious  sense,  and  sub- 
jected to  this  law  of  consecration  and  redemption.  The  Patri- 
arch Jacob  had,  by  different  wives,  two  sons,  Reuben  and  Jo- 
seph, each  of  whom  came  under  the  description  here  given  of  «^- 
fr-cv  ha.ioiyov  f^tfl^ccv,  and  SO  was  consecrated  by  his  birth.  But 
Reuben  alone  was  entitled  to  the  patrimony  of  the  first-born  (if 
he  had  not  forfeited  it  by  his  criminal  behaviour),  as  being  the 
first-fruits  of  both  parents.  (See  Gen.  xlix.  3,  4,  1  Chron.  v.  1, 
2.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that,  on  Reuben's  forfeiture,  even  the 
civil  prerogative,  the  double  portion,  did  not  descend,  according 


292 '  NOTES  ON  ch.  u. 

to  our  notions  of  seniority,  to  the  son  next  in  age  to  Reuben  ; 
for,  says  the  sacred  historian,  /ic  [Reuben]  was  the  first-born  ; 
but  forasmuch  as  he  defiled  his  father's  bed,  his  birth.right  was 
given  unto  the  sons  of  Joseph.  This  does  not  appear  to  have 
happened  in  consequence  of  a  particular  destination  in  Joseph's 
fa%'our,  else  it  is  probable  that,  in  the  history,  notice  would  have 
been  taken  of  that  circumstance,  but,  on  the  failure  of  Reuben, 
to  have  fallen  to  Joseph  in  course.  Now,  according  to  the  Eu- 
ropean rules  of  succession,  all  the  other  sons  of  Jacob  by  Leah, 
to  wit,  Simeon,  Levi,  Judah,  Issachar,  and  Zebulun,  as  being 
elder  than  Joseph,  had  a  preferable  title.  But  eldership  is  one 
thing,  and  primogeniture  another.  When  there  was  no  claim  to 
primogeniture  in  a  family  ;  as,  when  the  first-born  was  a  fe- 
male, or  had  died  ;  the  double  portion  came,  of  course,  to  the 
senior  brother  ;  but  the  sacred  character  could  not  be  transfer- 
red. In  regard  to  Dan  the  first-born  of  Bilhah,  and  Gad  the 
first-born  of  Zilpah,  not  only  had  they  no  title  to  the  civil  rights 
of  primogeniture,  but  it  is  even,  doubtful,  by  reason  of  the  ser- 
vile  condition  of  the  mothers,  whether  they  could  be  accounted 
hoi)/  by  their  birth.  It  is  universally  admitted  that  Isaac,  though 
the  younger  son,  being  the  child  of  a  free-woman,  while  Ishmaelj 
the.  elder  son,  was  the  child  of  a  slave,  was  alone  entitled  to  all 
the  prerogatives  of  primogeniture,  both  sacred  and  civil.  A 
Gentile  mother  is  also,  by  the  Rabbles,  deemed  incapable  of 
conveying  the  rights  of  the  first-born  of  either  kind  to  her  off- 
Spring.  Any  glaring  deformity,  a  defect  or  redundancy  in  any 
of  the  members,  efiectually  divested  the  first-born  of  his  sacred 
character,  but  not  of  his  patrimonial  birth-right.  A  number  of 
cases  have  been  put  by  the  Rabbles,  which  are  more  curious  than 
important,  in  order  to  show  when  the  two  species  of  rights  coin- 
cided in  the  same  individual,  and  when  they  did  not.  But  they 
are  not,  in  every  thing,  unanimous  on  this  subject ;  and  their 
decisions,  though  specious,  are  not  always  satisfactory.  See 
Selden,  lib.  De  successionibus,  &c.  ad  leges  Ebrajorum,  cap.  vii. 
^  Is  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  aytev  ru  Kv^ta  KXviG'/io-trcti.  E.  T. 
Shall  be  called  holy  to  the  Lord.  P.  R.  Si.  Sa.  Beau,  sera  con- 
sacre  au  Seigneur.  An.  Shall  be  consecrated  to  the  Lord.  It 
has  been  frequently  observed,  and  justly,  that  to  be  called,  and 
to  be,  often  mean  the  same  thing  in  the  Hebrew  idiom.  The 
word  called  has,  with  them,  in  such  caseSj  nearly  the  import  of 


S.  LUKE.  293 

theEne.  words   held,  acknowledged,  accounted.     Now,  that  a 
thing  is  acknowledged  to  be  of  a  particular  kind,  is  considered 
as  a  consequence  of  its  being  of  that  kind,  previously  to  the  ac 
knowledgment.     It  follows,  that  if,  in  translating  such  senten- 
ees,  the  verb  ..a.«  be  entirely  dropt,  and  the  epithet  hvly  be  sup. 
plied  by  the  participle  perfect  of  an  active  verb,  the  future  tense 
cannot  be  retained,  without  turning  a  simple  declaration  of  what 
is,  into  a  command  of  something  to  be  done       To  consecrate 
doubtless,  gives  a  more  perspicuous  sense,  in  Eng.  than  to  call 
hohi      Yet    shall  be  consecrated  would,  in  this  place,  imply 
more'  than  is  implied  in  the  original.     It  would  imply  an  order 
for  the  performance  of  some  solemn  ceremony  of  consecration, 
such,  for  example,  as  was  used  when  God  commanded  Moseys  to 
consecrate  Aaron  and  his  sons.     This  future,  thus  employed,  has, 
in  our  language,  the  effect  of  the  imperative:  whereas,  in  the 
present  instance,  it  is  manifestly  the  intention  of  the  writer  to 
inform  us,  that  this  single  circumstance,  in  the  birth  of  a  male, 
that  he  is  the  first-born  of  his  mother,  does,  of  itself,  consecrate 
him      In  such  cases,  therefore,  the  words  are  more  accurately, 
as  well  as  perspicuously,  rendered,  is  consecrated,  than  shall  be 
consecrated  to  the  Lord.     In  the  former  way  the  words  appear 
as  they  ought,  not  a  precept,  but  an  affirmation.     If,  instead  of 
a  participle,  an  adjective  be  employed,  the  future  may   without 
impropriety,  be  retained.     The  versions  of  Hey.  and  Wes.  are 
both  good.     The  first  says,  shall  be  held  sacred  to  the  Lord; 
the  second,  shall  be  holy  to  the  Lord.     In  neither  of  these  is 
there  any  appearance  of  a  command  of  what  is  to  be  done  ;  each 
is  a  distinct  declaration  of  what  obtains  in  every  such  instance. 
•      24    A  pair  of  turtle-doves,  or  two  young  pigeons.     This  was 
the  off-ering  required  from  the  poor.   Those  in  better  circumstan. 
ces  were  commanded  to  bring  a  lamb  of  the  first  year,  for  a  burnt, 
offering,  and  a  turtle-dove,  or  a  young  pigeon,  for  a  sin-ofl-enng. 
30   31.  The  Saviour  whom  thou  hast  provided,  to  o-«1«?'«y  e-H, 
0  ,'r,Uc-:t«.     E.  T.  Thy  salvation  which  thou  hast  prepared. 
In  every  language,  we  sometimes  meet  with  such  tropes  as  the 
abstract  for  the  concrete,  the  cause  for  the  effect,  and  the  hke. 
In  the  Oriental  tongues,  however,  they  seem  to  be  more  common 
than  in  most  others.    Thus,  God  is  called  our  defence,  our  song, 
our  hope  ;  that  is,  our  defender,  the  subject  of  our  song,  the 


VOL.    JT. 


294  NOTES  ON 


CH.  %i. 


object  of  our  hope.  But  when,  in  any  occurrence,  the  words  li- 
terally translated  appear  but  ill  adapted  to  the  idiom  of  our 
tongue,  or  occasion  obscurity,  it  is  better  to  express  the  sense  in 
plain  words. 

33,  Joseph,  lutr^tp.  Vul.  pater  ejus.  The  Cam.  with  three 
other  MSS.  o  TFctly^^  uvla.  With  this  agree  the  Cop.  Arm.  and 
Sax.  versions. 

38.  To  all  those  hi  Jerusalem,  zeho  expected  deliver ance^ 
'irotTi  rote,  5r/)o5-^£;^i«(ltevo(?  Xvl^uj-iv  z'l  'h.pii(rci?a}y..  E.  T.  To  all  them 
that  looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem.  Vul.  Omnibus  qui 
expe<:tabant  redemptionem  Israel.  This  version  is  evidently 
founded  on  a  different  reading.  It  is  favoured  by  the  Vat.  which 
is  singular,  in  having  m  ij-^ci^x  for  «v  lefus-aMfA..  Three  MSS.  of 
small  account,  read  £v  rw  l5-^i«j}A.  The  Al.  and  two  others  of  less 
note,  read  ' liPHTctXriiA.,  without  the  preposition,  and  thus  make  the 
meaning,  the  deliverance  of  Jerusalem.  This  reading  is  follow- 
ed by  the  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions.  As  these  diU'erences 
make  no  material  alteration  on  the  sense,  and  as  the  common 
reading  is  incomparably  better  supported  than  any  other,  and 
entirely  suited  to  the  scope  of  the  passage,  it  is,  in  every  respect, 
entitled  to  the  preference.  The  expectation  of  the  Messiah, 
though  very  general,  was  not  universal. 

40.  Adorned  with  a  divine  gracefulness,  %««<5  ©ek  viv  f^'  uv- 
Tu.  E.  T.  The  grace  of  God  was  upon  him.  A  verbal  trans- 
lation sometimes  expresses  the  sense  with  sufficient  clearness  ; 
and  sometimes,  though  obscure  or  equivocal,  it  is  not  more  so 
than  the  original.  In  either  case,  it  admits  a  plausible  apology: 
but  here,  I  imagine,  the  words  of  the  Evangelist  will,  to  a  dis- 
cerning reader,  suggest  a  meaning  which  can  hardly  be  said  to 
be  conveyed  to  any,  by  what  is  called  the  literal  version.  The 
word  ;^«f(5  has,  in  Scripture,  several  significations,  to  which 
there  is  not  one  Eng.  word  that  will,  in  all  cases,  answer.  Our 
translators  have  been  as  attentive  to  uniformity  as  most  others; 
yet,  for  this  word,  which  is  oftenest  rendered  grace,  they  have, 
on  different  occasions,  employed  one  or  other  of  the  following, 
favour,  liheraliti/,  benefit,  gift,  sake,  cause,  pleasure,  thank, 
thankworthy,  acceptable ;  and  even  these  are  not  all.  Let  it  not 
be  concluded  hence,  that  the  Gr.  word  must  be  very  equivocat 
and  indefinite.    Notwithstanding  the  aforesaid  remark,  it  is  very 


CH.  ri.  S.  LUKE.  295 

rarely  so.  But  it  is  commonly  the  words  in  immediate  connec. 
tion,  which,  in  all  languages,  limit  the  acceptation  of  one  ano- 
ther, and  put  the  meaning  beyond  a  doubt.  The  word  grace,  in 
Eng.  admits  a  considerable  latitude  of  signification,  as  well  as 
the  Gr.  x'^pii,  yet  is  seldom  so  situated  as  to  appear,  to  the  in- 
telligent, liable  to  be  misunderstood.  A  reader  of  discernment 
will  be  sensible,  that  use  in  the  language  as  truly  fixes  these 
limits,  as  it  does  the  common  acceptation  of  words,  or  the  rules 
of  inflection  and  construction.  1  have  preferred  gracefulness, 
in  the  version  of  this  passage,  as  more  explicit;  though  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  word  grace  often  bears  the  same  meaning. 
Nay,  I  must  add  that,  in  this  sense,  it  corresponds  to  the  most 
common  meaning  of  the  Gr.  term  in  classical  writers.  But  this 
is  a  sense  which,  though  not  so  common,  is  not  without  prece- 
dent in  the  sacred  penmen,  and  particularly  in  this  Evangelist, 
In  ch.  iv.  22.  of  this  Gospel,  the  term  is  manifestly  used  in  the 
same  meaning  :  Eiavf^LX^ev  ctti  roi^  P^.oyoig  t>k  /i«t^<T(^  to/?  exTropevo. 
fjLivoK;  ey,  ra  ?-oi^xt(^  uvra  :  here  rendered,  IVcre  astonished  at  the 
zsordsyfull  of  grace,  which  he  uttered.  The  charms  of  his  elo- 
cution, which  had  an  irresistible  effect  on  the  hearers,  are  evi- 
dently here  pointed  out.  Gracious  words,  in  the  common  trans- 
lation, are  not  at  all  suited  to  the  scope  of  the  passage.  See  the 
note  on  that  place.  The  word  appears  to  me  to  be  used  in  the 
same  sense.  Acts  iv.  33.  where  the  historian,  speaking  of  the  tes- 
timony which  the  Apostles  gave  in  behalf  of  their  Master,  when 
they  entered  on  their  ministry,  says,  X«^j?  ts  f^iyaM  ?iv  e-pi-i  Travrxq 
uvTHi  ■  to  denote  the  divine  eloquence  wherewith  they  expressed 
themselves,  agreeably  to  the  promise  of  their  Lord,  timt  they 
should  receive  a  mouth  and  wisdom,  which  all  tlieir  adversaries 
should  not  be  able  to  withstand.  In  like  manner,  I  take  this  to 
be  the  import  of  the  word.  Acts  vii.  10.  where  Stephen  says  of 
the  Patriarch  Joseph,  'o  ©£a?  eSaxiv  uvrtv  x^?'^  ^^  'ro<pixv  evavrtov 
'l>xsx!i).  I  acknowledge  that  our  translators  have,  not  implausi- 
bly, rendered  the  words,  God  gave  him  Javour  and  zcisdom  in^ 
the  sight  of  Pharaoh.  It  is,  however,  more  probable,  and  more 
agreeable  to  the  rules  of  interpretation,  that  the  gifts,  ;^«^;v  k; 
Totpiccv,  thus  coupled,  should  be  understood  as  denoting  distinct 
personal  talents  bestowed  on  Joseph,  and  not  that  only  one  of 
them,  Tocpiccv,  should  express  a  personal  quality,  and  that  x^piv 
ihould  denote,  barely,  the  effect  of  the  other,  or  tliat  affection 
which  the  discovery  of  his  wisdom  would  procure  hiai.     The 


296  KOTES  ON 


CH.  II. 


sense,  therefore,  in  my  opinion,  is,  that  God  united  in  Joseph, 
that  discernment,  which  qualified  him  for  giving  the  best  coun- 
sel, with  those  graces  of  elocution,  which  conciliated  favour,  and 
produced  persuasion.  Xx^ti;  is  also  used  in  this  manner  by  the 
Apostle  Paul,  Eph.  iv.  29.  Col.  iv.  6.  The  addition  of  ©£«  to 
)i«/>/s,  makes,  in  the  Hebrew  idiom,  a  kind  of  superlative,  raising 
the  signification  as  much  as  possible.  For  ^ocpii  is  not,  like 
TTifig,  expressive  merely  of  a  mental  quality,  but  refers  to  effects 
both  outward  and  sensible.  (See  Mr.  xi.  22.  N.)  Thus,  «r«®- 
ra>  ©f(i>,  applied  to  Moses,  Acts  vii.  20.  when  an  infant,  signifies 
extremely  beautiful.  As  such  expressions  denote  the  highest 
degree  of  a  valuable  quality,  they  have,  doubtless,  arisen  from 
the  conviction,  that  God  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  source  whence 
every  good  and  perfect  gift  descends.  Wet.  gives,  in  effect,  the 
same  explanation  of  this  passage.  For  further  confirming  the 
version  here  given,  it  maybe  also  observed,  that  when  the  Evan- 
gelists say  any  thing  in  relation  to  the  characters  of  the  persons 
of  whom  they  write  (which  is  but  seldom),  their  words,  rightly 
explained,  will  always  be  found  to  convey  a  precise  and  distinct 
sentiment,  and  not  to  prove  expressions  merely  indefinite,  of 
what  is  good  or  bad  in  general.  Now,  the  common  version  of 
this  passage  is  exactly  such  a  vague  expression.  For,  to  say 
that  y,^fii<i  here  means  favour,  is  to  say  that  the  historian  tells  us 
nothing  which  we  are  not  told  verse  52,  where  it  is  said  he  acU 
'Danced  in  favour  with  God  and  man.  Now,  I  do  not  find  that 
these  writers  are  chargeable  with  such  repetitions,  so  quickly  re- 
curring. Besides,  in  this  acceptation,  the  phrase  would  not  be, 
v«f '5  »}V  £5r'  ccvroj ;  but  tvpe  X'*?'^  evuTrttv  m  ©£»,  or  ttx^x  tm  Qsm  >^ 
jTf®-  TOW  A^an.  The  thing  to  which,  in  my  judgment,  the  histo- 
*rian  here  particularly  points,  is  that  graceful  dignity  in  our 
Lord's  manner  which  at  once  engaged  the  love,  and  commanded 
the  respect,  of  all  who  heard  him.  To  this  we  find  several  allu- 
sions made  in  these  writings.  See  Mt.  vii.  28,  29.  Mr.  i.  22.  L. 
iv.  22.  32.  J.  vii.  46.  All  these  passages,  put  together,  indicate 
an  authority,  in  his  manner,  superior  to  human,  blended  with 
the  most  condescending  sweetness.  With  this  distinguishing 
quality  the  Evangelist  here  acquaints  us  that  Jesus  was  attended 
from  his  childhood. 

41.  In  the  company,  ev  rvj  fvyohx.     'Zwoha  means,  properly,  a 
tompany  of  travellers.     As  at  the  three  great  festivals,  all  the 


CH.  II. 


S.  LUKE.  297 


men  who  were  able,  were  obliged,  and  many  women  chose,  at 
least  at  the  passover,  to  attend  the  celebration  at  Jerusalem, 
they  were  wont,  for  their  greater  security  against  the  attacks  of 
robbers  on  the  road,  to  travel  in  large  companies.  All  who 
came,  not  only  from  the  same  city,  but  from  the  same  canton  or 
district,  made  one  company.  They  carried  necessaries  along 
with  them,  and  tents  for  their  lodging  at  night.  Sometimes,  iu 
hot  weather,  they  travelled  all  night,  and  rested  in  the  day.  This 
is  nearly  the  manner  of  travelling,  in  the  East,  to  this  hour. 
Such  companies  they  now  call  caravans^  and,  in  several  places, 
have  got  houses  fitted  up  for  their  reception,  called  caravansa- 
ries. See  N.  on  v.  7.  ^  This  account  of  their  manner  of  tra- 
velling, furnishes  a  ready  answer  to  the  question.  How  could  Jo- 
seph and  Mary  make  a  day's  journey,  without  discovering,  be- 
fore night,  that  Jesus  was  not  in  the  company  ?  In  the  day 
time,  we  may  reasonably  presume,  that  the  travellers  would, 
as  occasion,  business,  or  inclination,  led  them,  mingle  with  dif- 
ferent parties  of  their  friends  and  acquaintance  ;  but  that,  in  the 
evening,  when  they  were  about  to  encamp,  every  one  would  join 
the  family  to  which  he  belonged.  As  Jesus  did  not  appear,  when 
it  was  growing  late,  his  parents  first  sought  him  where  they 
supposed  he  would  most  probably  be,  amongst  his  relations  and 
acquaintance,  and  not  finding  him,  returned  to  Jerusalem. 

48.  But  they  xoho  sawhim^  were  amazed^  j^  oJavr^?  uvrov  e%i7irX!t' 
ytjrrxv.  E.  T.  Andzchen  they  5«re  him,  they  were  amazed-^  that 
is,  when  Joseph  and  Mary  (mentioned  ver.  43.)  saw  him.  This 
is  the  common  way  of  rendering  the  words,  and  they  are  doubt- 
less susceptible  of  this  interpretation  ;  but  they  are  also  suscep- 
tible of  that  here  given.  This  is  taken  notice  of  by  Bowyer,  as 
an  exposition  suggested  by  Markland.  Indeed,  if  the  article  had 
been  prefixed  to  iJ'svtes,  I  should  not  have  thought  the  words  ca- 
pable  of  any  other  meaning.  As  they  stand,  the  omission,  espe. 
cially  after  ^«5  or  ^ravTE?,  and  a  participle  in  the  nominative, 
with  the  article,  is  not  unprecedented.  Thus,  Mt.  xi.  28.  Afure  ^ 
}rp(^  fAi  5rotvT£5  01  xo5r(&»vT£{  >^  7r£<poprtir/4,£Vat,  y-kya  ccvcfTrocvTu  ui^a.^.  It 
may,  indeed,  be  objected  that,  in  this  example,  both  the  partici- 
ples are  to  be  understood  as  relating  to  the  same  persons  ;  in 
which  case,  the  repetition  of  the  article  would  hardly  be  proper. 
This,  I  acknowledge,  may  be  the  case,  but  the  suppression  of  the 
article  will  not  be  admitted  as  sufficient  evidence  that  it  is.  For, 


298  NOTES  ON  ch.  ii. 

in  L.  xir.  11.  where  we  read,  xots  o  oij/av  txvTov  TXTeivoStja-sTxt^  >^ 
TccTreivav  Ixvrov  ii'^oi^tjo-iToct^  the  two  participles,  so  far  from  being 
applicable  to  the  same  individual,  are  contrasted,  as  represent, 
ing  persons  of  opposite  characters.  Yet  the  article,  as  well  as 
the  adjective  woe?,  are  omitted  before  the  second  participle:  but 
every  body  must  be  sensible  that  they  are  understood  as  equally 
belonging  to  both.  The  case  of  the  passage  under  review  is  si- 
milar. E|«r«vro  oe  TfctvTe^  oi  XKHevTei  etvra^  ctti  rv)  trvve<rfi  x^  rcti^  cfx-ax.. 
ptriTtv  «MT«,  }^  t^evTei  ccvrev  e^eTrXdyita-civ,  Here  the  Trxvre^  oi  may 
be  understood  as  repeated  before  the  second  participle.  An  in- 
considerable alteration  in  the  arrangement  of  the  words,  will 
make  this  criticism  more  sensibly  felt.  n«vr£?  <?£  o<  uy-novni;  xura 
e^iToivroj  xj  laovrei  etvrev  e^evXotyiifJ-ccv^  ctti  rtj  a-vveo-et  ^  rciti  XTroK^iaso-iv 
eivTu.  For  the  sake  of  perspicuity,  I  have  followed  this  order 
in  the  version.  But  as  the  words  are  capable  of  the  other  inter, 
pretation  above  mentioned,  my  reasons  for  preferring  that  here 
given,  are  these :  1st,  In  the  ordinary  explanation,  the  distance 
is  rather  too  great  between  the  participle  in  v.  48.  and  the  nouns 
to  which  it  refers  in  v.  43.  This  has  made  Be.  think  it  necessa- 
ry to  supply  the  viorAs  parentes  ejus,  for  removing  the  obscuri- 
ty ;  and  in  this  he  has  been  followed  by  several  other  interpre- 
ters. 2dly,  The  meaning,  here  given,  appears  to  me  belter  suit- 
ed to  the  scope  of  the  passage.  His  parents  may  be  said  to  have 
had  reason  of  surprise,  or  even  amazement,  when  they  discover- 
ed that  he  was  not  in  their  company ;  but  surely,  to  them  at 
least,  there  was  nothing  peculiarly  surprising,  in  finding  that  he 
was  not  amusing  himself  with  boys,  but  in  the  temple,  among 
the  doctors,  discoursing  on  the  most  important  subjects.  I  may 
say  justly  that,  to  them,  who  knew  whence  he  was,  there  was 
less  ground  of  amazement  at  the  wisdom  and  understanding  dis- 
played in  his  answers,  than  to  any  other  human  being.  3dly,  It 
appears  the  intention  of  the  Evangelist,  in  this  passage,  to  im- 
press us  with  a  sense  of  the  extraordinary  attainments  of  our 
Lord,  in  wisdom  and  knowledge,  even  in  childhood,  from  the 
effect  which  the  discovery  of  them  produced  on  others.  All 
in  the  temple  who,  though  they  did  not  see  him,  were  within 
hearing,  and  could  judge  from  what  they  heard,  were  astonished 
at  the  propriety,  the  penetration,  and  the  energy,  they  discover. 
ed  in  every  thing  he  said;  but  those  whose  eyesight  convinced 


cu.  in.  S.  LUKE.  299 

them  of  his  tender  age,  were  confoundeclj  as  persons  who  were 
witnesses  of  something  preternatural. 

49.  At  my  Father'' s^  £v  Ta<5  ts  Tracr^©-  /ics.  E.  T.  About  my 
Father'' s  business.  Sy.  "i^s  wan  in  domo  patris  mei.  The  Arm. 
version  renders  the  words  in  the  same  manner.  It  has  been  justly 
observed,  that  t«  r«  <J«v©~'  is  a  Gr.  idiom,  not  only  with  classical 
writers,  but  with  the  sacred  penmen,  for  denoting  the  house  of 
such  a  person.  Thus,  Esther,  vii.  9.  what  is  in  Heb.  pn  n^aa 
and  in  the  E.  T.  In  the  house  of  llaman^  is  rendered  by  the  Se. 
Tenty,  £v  to(<;  A^stv.  E/?  ret  <J'<c6,  J.  xix.  27.  is  justly  translated, 
in  the  common  version  (and,  I  may  add,  to  the  same  purpose,  in 
every  version  I  know),  Unto  his  oxon  home.  The  idiom  and 
ellipsis  are  the  same.  The  like  examples  occur,  Esth.  v.  10.  vi. 
12.  One  who  desires  to  see  more,  may  consult  Wet.  upon  the 
place.  This  interpretation  has  been  given  by  many  great  scrip- 
tural critics,  ancient  and  modern,  Origen,  Euth.  The.  Gro.  Ham. 
Wet.  and  others.  As  the  phrase  is  elliptical  in  Gr.  I  have,  with 
Dod.  expressed  it  elliptically  in  Eng.  It  is  not  often  that  our 
language  admits  so  close  a  resemblance. 

CHAPTER  III. 

1.  Now,  ^e.  The  Marcionites,  who  rejected  the  two  preced- 
ing chapters,  began  their  gospel  here.  It  was  urged  by  their  ad- 
versaries, that  the  very  conjunction  <Jf,  with  which  this  chapter  is 
introduced,  which  is  translated  in  all  the  ancient  versions,  which 
was  retained,  it  seems,  by  themselves,  and  is  wanting  only  in 
two  MSS.  is  itself  an  evidence  of  the  mutilation  of  their  copies, 
being  always  understood  to  imply  that  something  preceded. 

2  Procurator.  Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

2.  In  the  high  priesthood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  ctf''  ccp^u~ 
f£«v  Avv£*  j^  Kxixcpet.  By  the  original  constitution,  one  only  could 
be  high  priest  at  one  time,  and  the  office  was  for  life.  But  after 
the  nation  had  fallen  under  the  power  of  foreigners,  great  liber- 
ties were  taken  with  this  sacred  office  ;  and  high  priests,  though 
still  of  the  pontifical  family  of  Aaron,  were  put  in  or  out  arbi- 
trarily, as  suited  the  humour,  the  interest,  or  the  political  views 
of  their  rulers.     And  though  it  does  not  appear  that  they  ever 


800  NOTES  ON 


CJf.  III. 


appointed  two  to  officiate  jointly  in  that  station,  there  is  some 
probability  that  the  Romans,  about  this  time,  made  the  office  an- 
nual,  and  that  Annas  or  Ananus,  as  he  is  called  by  the  Jewish 
historian,  and  Caiaphas  enjoyed  it  by  turns.  See  J.  xi.  49. 
xviii.  3.  Acts  iv.  6.  If  this  was  the  case,  which  is  not  unlikely  ; 
or  if,  as  some  think,  the  sagan,  or  deputy,  is  comprehended  un- 
der the  same  title,  we  cannot  justly  be  surprised  that  they  should 
be  named  as  colleagues  by  the  Evangelist.  In  any  event  it  may 
have  been  usual,  through  courtesy,  to  continue  to  give  the  title 
to  those  who  had  ever  enjoyed  that  dignity,  which,  when  they 
had  no  king,  was  the  greatest  in  the  nation.  It  is  not  improper 
to  add,  that  a  very  great  number  of  MSS.  many  of  them  of  the 
highest  value,  read  «f;^;<ff£»?,  in  the  singular.  Though  this  read, 
ing  does  not  well  suit  the  syntactic  order,  and  though  it  is  not 
favoured  by  any  ancient  version,  except  the  Cop.  it  is  approved 
by  Wet. 

13.  Exact  no  more,  n^jhv  ttAmv  T^xTrert.  Vul.  Nihil  amplius 
faciatis.  Er.  Ne  quid  amplius  exigatis.  In  this  Er.  who  has 
been  followed  by  Leo,  Cas.  Be.  the  Eng.  and  other  modern  trans, 
lators,  has,  without  departing  from  the  known  meaning  of  the 
Gr.  verb,  given  a  version  that  is  both  apposite  and  perspicuous. 
We  cannot  say  so  much  of  the  passage,  as  translated  in  the  Vul. 

18.  And,  with  many  other  exhortations,  he  published  the 
good  tidings  to  the  people.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  4. 

1 9.  His  brother'' s  wife,  rv^  y-jvctinf^  <l>iXi7r7rii  th  xhx(pn  etvnt. 
The  word  ^iXiTTTm  is  wanting  in  very  many  MSS.  both  of  great 
and  of  little  account.  It  is  not  in  some  of  the  oldest  and  best 
editions,  nor  in  the  Vul.  Arm.  Go.  and  Sax.  versions.  It  is,  be- 
sides, rejected  by  Mill  and  Wet,  The  latter  observes,  that  the 
name  is  rightly  omitted  here,  as  otherwise  the  person  meant 
might  readily  be  mistaken  for  the  Philip  mentioned  v.  1.  This 
consideration  adds  to  the  probability  that  he  has  not  been  named 
in  this  place,  because,  if  the  Evangelist  had  named  him,  it  is  na- 
tural to  think,  that  he  would  have  added  some  circumstance  to 
discriminate  him  from  the  Philip  he  had  mentioned  so  short  while 
before. 

23.  Now  Jesus  was  himself  about  thirty  years  in  subjection, 

f^  xvr^  uv  0    lyjTtSi  'cos-et  truv  rptujcavrx  cc^^of/.(v^.      E.  T.  And  J e- 
sus  himself  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age.     Nothing,  I 


CH.  III.  S.  LUKE.  301 

think,  is  plainer  than  that,  by  no  rule  of  syntax,  can  the  Gr. 
vrords  be  so  construed,  as  to  yield  the  sense*  which  our  transla- 
tors have  given  them.  Admitting  that  jjv  «^;t;«;M.£v^  may  be  used 
for  j?f;t;£Ta ;  because,  though  the  phrase  does  not  occur  in  Scrip- 
ture, it  is  not  unconformable  to  the  Gr.  idiom  ;  yet  if  cce:;icoi^e- 
v(^  mean,  here,  beginning^  something  still  is  wanting  to  com- 
plete the  sense.  Some,  therefore,  to  fill  up  the  deficiency,  join 
the  word  «v,  immediately  following,  to  this  clause,  and,  by  an 
extraordinary  enallage,  cause  the  participle  to  supply  the  place 
of  the  infinitive.  Thus,  they  make  the  Evangelist  say,  «y  tc^^c^' 
iLtDioi  (wv,  for  iippc^ro  eivxi.  As  if  we  should  say  in  Eng.  And  he 
was  beginning  beings  instead  of,  And  he  began  to  be,  for  (he 
expression  in  the  one  language,  is  no  way  preferable  to  that  in 
the  other.  Those  who  imagine  that,  in  so  plain  a  case,  the  Evan- 
gelist would  have  expressed  himself  in  so  obscure,  so  perplexed, 
an(J  so  unnatural,  a  manner,  have  a  notion  very  difl'erent  from 
mine,  of  the  simplicity  of  style  employed  by  these  writers.  Be- 
sides, some  critics  have  justly  remarked,  that  there  is  an  incon- 
gruity in  saying,  in  any  language,  A  man  began  to  be  about  such 
an  age.  When  we  say,  a  man  is  about  such  an  age,  we  are  al- 
ways understood  to  denote,  that  we  cannot  say  whether  he  be 
exactly  so,  or  a  little  more,  or  a  little  less;  but  this  will  never 
suit  the  expression,  began  to  be,  which  admits  no  such  latitude. 
To  combine,  in  this  manner,  a  definite  with  an  indefinite  term, 
confounds  the  meaning,  and  leaves  the  reader  entirely  at  a  loss. 
Some  interpret  the  words,  When  he  was  about  thirty  years  old, 
he  began  his  ministry.  But  as  there  is  no  mention  of  ministry, 
or  allusion  to  it,  either  in  what  goes  before,  or  in  what  follows, 
I  suspect  this  mode  of  expression  would  be  equally  unprecedent- 
ed with  the  former.  The  whole  difficulty  is  removed  at  once, 
by  making  the  import  of  the  participle  the  same  with  that  of  Itt-j. 
Ttcra-of^aog,  ch.  ii.  51.  ruled,  governed,  in  subjection.  Hey.  has 
adopted  this  method,  w  hich  was,  he  says,  suggested  by  a  remark 
he  found  in  the  book  called  A  Critical  Examination  of  the  holy 
Gospels.  Ih  this  way  understood,  we  find  no  more  occasion  to 
do  violence  to  the  construction  ;  every  thing  like  ellipsis,  or  tau- 
tology, or  incongruous  combination,  vanishes  at  once.  Besides, 
the  meaning  given  is  entirely  analogical,  and  not  unfrequent ; 
ce.fy,H^,  in  the  active  voice,  is  to  govern,  eip'^ereeit,  in  the  passive, 
tn  be  governed.     Just  so,  «f%»vT£?  Kut  «/>;>;« ttfvoj,  magistrates  and 

TOT..   IV.  3« 


302  NOTES  ON  ch.  lit. 

subjects.  Tw  wy,r6<;  tt^otx-otth,  rt  a-ei  TroHjfrairiv  it  a^^of^svoi,  tTrfi, 
^dv  ^fA^epxyiviircit:  At  night  provide  work  for  your  subjects  tcf 
do  wh  n  it  is  day.  Cyropscd.  lib.  i.  No  critic  hesitates  to  ad- 
mit even  an  uncommon  acceptation,  when  it  is  the  only  acce[)- 
tation  which  suits  the  words  connected.  Vv  ho  questions  the 
propriety  of  rendering  7r|'«(ro-£<v,  v,  13.  to  exact?  Yet,  though 
>  this  verb  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  upwards  of  thirty  times,  the  verse 
mentioned  is  the  only  place  wherein  it  can  be  so  rendered.  The 
argument  is  stronger  in  the  present  case,  as,  by  the  meaning 
here  given,  which  is  far  from  being  uncommon,  the  construction 
also  is  unravelled. 

-  As  zcas  supposed^  «;  ivoy.i^iro.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Ut  putu- 
hatur.  Sy.  to  the  same  purpose,  n^nro  Hey.  As  roas  supposed 
according  to  laic.  Priestley's  Harmony,  As  he  was  by  lazo  ah 
lowed  to  be.  In  this  he  has  adopted  the  explanation  given  by 
Bishop  Pearce,  in  his  commentary  and  notes.  I  am  not  against 
preferring  a  less,  to  a  more,  usual  interpretation,  when  the  for- 
mer suits  ihe  scope  of  the  passage,  and  the  latter  does  not.  But, 
in  the  present  instance,  nothing  can  suit  better  the  scope  of  the 
passage,  than  the  common  acceptation  of  the  verb  toy^K^crS-xu 
which  is,  to  be  thought,  supposed,  or  accounted.  The  historian 
had,  in  the  two  preceding  chapters,  given  us  an  account  of  our 
Lord's  miraculous  conception  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  womb  of  a  virgin.  After  having  said  so  much  to  satisfy 
us  that  Jesus  was  no  son  of  Joseph,  and  now  introducing  the 
mention  of  him  as  his  son,  it  was  quite  natural  to  insert  the 
clause,  w?  evi/^i^iro,  to  show  that,  in  this,  he  did  not  contradict 
himself,  but  spoke  only  according  to  the  current,  though  mista. 
ken  opinion,  of  the  country.  But  what  the  words,  allowed  by 
law,  have  to  do  here,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  conceive.  One 
would  imagine,  from  them,  that  a  claim  of  succession  to  Joseph 
had  been  made  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  and  opposed  by  the  rela- 
tions, but  carried  in  a  court  of  law.  This  is  one  of  those  refine- 
ments in  criticism,  which  make  men  nauseate  what  is  obvious, 
and  pursue,  through  the  mazes  of  etymology,  what  was  never 
imagined  before.  Be.  who,  as  has  been  observed,  often  errs  in 
this  way,  has  not  discovered,  liere,  any  scope  for  the  indulgence 
of  his  favourite  humour,  but,  like  others,  has  rendered  the  words, 
simply,  ut  cxistiinabatur.  As  to  the  quotations  from  Josephus, 
there  is  nothing  parallel  in  the  cases:   besides,  it  will   readily 


CH.  IV. 


S.  LUKE.  303 


be  admitted,  by  critics,  that  the  words  ev^ut;  nvou-iu-f^ivctii  are  bet- 
ter rendered  ihe  customary  prayers^  than  th.-  prayers  appointed 
by  law.  The  passive  vofA.t(^e(r!^M  frequently  corresponds  to  the 
La.  tnoris  esse :  whereas,  the  proper  expression  in  Gr.  for 
prayers  appointed  by  laze,  is  £vx,oii  vef^tfiin.  The  examples  from 
classical  authors,  referred  to  in  Wet.  are  all  capable  of  being 
rendered  by  one  or  other  of  the  two  ordinary  signilications,  to  be 
thought.,  or  to  be  zeont.  But,  in  such  phrases  as  '»?  ivo/A-t^eTo^ 
there  is  commonly  a  meaning  appropriated,  by  use,  to  the  words, 
taken  jointly,  from  which  there  will  not,  perhaps,  be  found  a 
single  exception.  Had  it,  therefore,  been  the  sacred  writer's  in- 
tention to  say  what  those  interpreters  would  make  him  say,  he 
would  certainly  have  chosen  another  expression  for  conveying 
his  sentiment  than  this,  which,  he  must  have  been  sensible,  could 
not  be  understood  otherwise  than  as  it  has  always,  till  so  late  as 
the  eighteenth  century,  been  interpreted:  for  let  it  be  observed, 
that  this  is  one  of  the  passages  in  which  there  was  never  disco- 
vered, by  either  commentators  or  interpreters,  the  shadow  of  a 
difficulty,  and  about  which  there  was  never  before  any  diti'erence 
of  opinion  or  doubt. 

36.  Son  of  Cainan.  Be.  on  the  single  authority  of  the  Cam. 
in  opposition  to  the  united  testimonies  of  MSS.  and  translations, 
has  omitted  this  clause  in  his  version.  Cainan  is  not  indeed  in 
the  Heb.  genealogy  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xi.  12,  13,  either  in  tlie 
Jewish  copy  or  in  the  Samaritan,  though  it  is  in  the  version  of 
the  Seventy.  But  this  is  not  the  only  place  in  which  this  Evan- 
gelist, who  wrote  in  Gr.  followed  the  old  Gr.  translation,  even 
where  it  differed  from  the  original  Heb.  But  it  is  not  the  pro. 
vince  of  a  translator  of  the  Gospel,  because  he  esteems  the  Heb. 
reading  preferable  to  the  Gr.  to  correct,  by  his  own  ideas,  what 
he  has  reason  to  believe  was  written  by  the  Evangelist, 

CHAPTER  IV. 

2.   The  Devil.     Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  §  1—6. 

7.  It  shall  all  be  thine^  es-cs*  c-y  Trcc^irot,.  In  the  much  greater 
number  of  MSS.  especially  those  of  principal  note,  for  ■^u.vTcit.  we 
read  ■frix.'rx,,  agreeing  with  i^artx.     Both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  the  Eth. 


304  NOTES  ON  ca.  iv. 

and  the  Ara.  versions,  have  read  in  the  same  manner.  But  the' 
Vul.  has  omnia.  Of  printed  editions,  the  Com.  two  of  Stephens, 
Wechelius,  Ben.  Wet.  Bowyer,  read  also  'xcca-ct. 

8.  '^Tcctye  oTTicra  f^^a  Socr«v«.  This  clause  is  not  only  wanting 
in  some  of  the  best  MSS.  but  in  the  Sy,  Vul.  Go.  Sax.  Cop. 
Arm.  and  Eth.  translations.  Gro.  observes,  that  before  The.  no 
ancient  writer  considered  these  words  as  belonging  to  this  place. 
Mill  agrees  with  Gro.  in  rejecting  them.  Wet.  who  is  more 
scrupulous,  chooses  to  retain  them,  though  he  rejects  the  particle 
yxp  immediately  following,  to  which  the  introduction  of  this 
clause  has  probably  given  rise. 

18.  Inasmuch  as,  a'  cveKa.  E.  T.  Because.  Vul.  Propter 
quod.  Cas.  Quandoi/uidem.  Dod.  and  others,  For  the  purpose 
to  zohich.  The  force  of  the  conjunction  is  better  hit  by  Cas.  than 
either  by  the  E.  T.  or  by  the  Vul.  and  Dod.  It  is  neither  causal 
nor  final  so  much  as  explanatory.  Such  is  often  the  import  of 
the  Heb.  jj)»  iaghan,  the  word  used  by  the  prophet. 

18.  19.  Diss.  V.  P.  II.  §  2.     Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  5. 

19.  The  Vul.  without  the  authority  of  MSS.  adds  to  this 
Terse,  et  diem  retributionis  y  and  in  this  is  followed  by  the  se- 
cond Sy.  Ara.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions.  A  clause  corresponding 
to  it  is  indeed  found  in  the  prophet  quoted  ;  but  in  no  Gr.  MS. 
of  L.  except  in  a  few  belonging  to  the  Marquis  de  los  Veles, 
which,  in  Si.'s  opinion,  have  been  fabricated  on  the  Vul.  and  are 
consequently  of  no  authority  in  this  question. 

20.  To  the  servant^  ru  wjrjj^fTsj.  E.  T.  To  the  minister. 
From  the  manner  in  which  we  apply  the  word  minister^  in  our 
churches,  the  Eng.  reader  is  apt  to  be  led  into  a  mistake  by  the 
common  version,  and  to  consider  the  word  here  as  meaning  the 
person  who  presided  in  the  service ;  whereas,  it  denotes  only  a 
subordinate  ofTicer,  who  attended  the  minister,  and  obeyed  his 
orders  in  what  concerned  the  more  servile  part  of  the  work. 
Amongst  other  things,  he  had  the  charge  of  the  sacred  books,  and 
delivered  them  to  those  to  whom  he  was  commanded  by  his  su- 
periors to  give  them.  After  the  reading  was  over,  he  deposited 
them  in  their  proper  place.  This  officer  the  Jews  call  chazan, 
who  ought  not  to  be  confounded  with  ap^^nrvvxywyei,  ruler  of  the 
synagogue. 


en.  IT.  S.  LUKE.  305 

22.  All  extolled  him,  ttxvtsi;  ct^x^rvpav  »vtu.  E.  T.  All  bare 
him  witness.  Mxprvpeuv  nvi  commonly  denotes,  to  give  one  a  fa- 
vourable testimony  ;  to  firaise,  to  extol,  to  commend  ;  as  ch.  xi, 
48.  Acts,  xiii.  22.  Rom.  x.  2.  Here  it  is  manifestly  used  in  this 
sense.  The  phruse  bare  him  witness,  is  both  indefiuite  and  ol). 
scure. 

^  fVords  full  of  grace,  roii  >,rjyoi(;  Tr,i  p^cc^iTii.  E.  T.  The  gra- 
cious zoords.  Dod.  The  graceful  zcords.  I  took  notice,  on  ch. 
ii.  40.  that  gracious,  which  is  nearly  synonymous  to  kind,  does 
not  suit  the  sense  of  this  passage.  I  must  say  the  same  thing  of 
graceful,  which  though  one  who  judged  from  etymology,  would 
think  perfectly  equivalent  to  full  of  grace,  is  not  so  in  reality. 
Graceful  words  means,  io  approved  use,  no  more  than  zoelL 
sounding  words  ;  whereas,  in  uords  full  of  grace,  if  I  mistake 
not,  there  is  always  something  implied  in  relation  to  their  sense 
much  more  than  to  their  sound. 

34.  The  holy  One  of  God,  o  «y/e;  t«  ©£«.  For  the  full  im- 
port of  the  word  ayes,  in  its  different  applications,  see  Diss.  VI. 
P.  IV.  It  may  be  proper  here,  however,  to  remark,  that  when 
the  word  is  used  in  the  N.  T.  as  an  appellative  with  the  article, 
in  the  singular  number,  and  applied  to  a  person,  the  application 
is  always  either  to  God  or  to  Christ.  Let  it  be  observed,  that  I 
do  not  speak  of  the  Heb.  Tcn  chasid,  and  the  Gr.  io-io<;,  but  of  syp 
kadosh  and  uyKx;.  This  term  is  employed  sometimes  alone,  to 
denote  the  true  God,  i  uyioi  the  holy  One,  and  sometimes,  par- 
ticularly in  the  O.  T.  with  the  addition  of  the  name  of  his  peo- 
ple, the  holy  One  of  Israel,  'o  Uytoc,,  the  holy  One,  or  the  saint,  - 
is,  in  like  manner,  appropriated,  particularly  in  the  N.  T.  to  Je- 
sus Christ,  commonly  with  the  addition  of  rs  &iH.  But,  after 
the  times  of  the  Apostles,  Christians  became  much  more  lavish 
of  titles,  and  of  this  title  in  particular,  than  their  predecessors 
had  been.  I  have,  therefore,  chosen  to  follow  our  translators 
in  rendering  o  «y<«5  the  holy  One,  rather  than  the  Saint,  a  deno-  ¥ 
mination  which,  in  latter  ages,  has  been  so  much  prostituted, 
that,  to  say  the  least,  a  name  so  venerable,  as  that  of  Jesus, 
could  derive  no  dignity  from  it. 

36.  What  meaneth  this?  that  xoith  authority  and  power  he 
lOmmandeth  ?  n^  o  Aoyo?  sra^,  on  a  e^ac-ix  y.xt  ^v¥Xf*,^  iTrircm-G-n  ; 
E.  T.   What  a  zcord  is  this?  For  zoith  authority  and  power  he 


306  NOTES  ON  ch.  iv. 

commandeth.     For  the  import  of  the  conjunction  or/,  in   this 
pfece,  see  ch.  i.  45.  ^  N. 

39.  Standing  near  her.,  £x;r«;?  e-^atca  aurj??.  E.  T.  He  stood 
ever  her.  'Etcx^iu^  in  the  sacred  penmen,  frequently  answers  to 
the  Heb.  V;?  ghal^  which  corresponds  not  only  to  the  La.  prepo- 
sitioii  super,  but  to  juxta. 

40.  After  sunset,  all  they  zcJio  had  any  sick — because  then 
the  Sabbath  was  ended,  and  the  people  were  at  liberty  to  carry 
their  sick. 

41.  Thou  art  the  Messiah,  the  Soft  of  God,  o-v  n  o  X(»(5-«5  o 
hiei  ra  ©£».  Vul.  Tu  es  Jilius  Dei.  'o  Xf/^-e?  is  not  in  the  Cam. 
and  four  other  MSS.  It  has  no  place  in  the  Cop.  Arm.  Sax. 
and  Ara.  versions,  any  more  than  in  the  Vul. 

-  JVould  not  alloia  them  to  speak,  because  they  kneio,  ay.  no, 
cvrtt  XotXetii,  on  iihirccv.  Some  say  that  the  words  may  be  render- 
ed, Would  not  alloio  them  to  say  that  they  knexc,  interpreting 
the  conjunction  on  as  in  verse  36.  Had  the  Evangelist  used  Ae- 
ynv  instead  of  XiXeiv,  I  should  certainly  have  so  translated  the 
passage  ;  but  as  these  two  verbs  are  not  employed  promiscuous- 
ly in  Gr.  I  thought  it  better  to  preserve  the  distinction  in  Eng. 

42.  Sought  him  out,  e^vjrat  xvtov.  E.  T.  Sought  him.  A  very 
great  number  of  MSS.  and  among  these  some  of  the  most  valua- 
ble, read  (■^et^tirav.  The  difference  in  meaning  is  not  considera- 
ble ;  but  it  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  distinction  here  made. 

^  Urged  him  not  to  leave  them,  icocniy^ov  etvrev  m  [M)  zro^iveFB-xi 
oiTr''  ccvTuv.  E.  T.  Stayed  him  that  he  should  not  depart  from 
them.  In  most  translations,  as  well  as  in  the  Eng.  the  w  ords  are 
so  rendered  as  to  imply  that  they  detained  him  by  force.  But  that 
yiaxiyju  does  not  always  signify  the  possession  or  the  attainment 
of  the  thing  spoken  of,  is  evident  from  this  very  writer's  use  of 
it,  Acts  xxvii.  40.  ««T£<;%iov  «?  ro^)  cciytccM*,  which  our  translators 
render,  very  justly,  made  toward  shore.  Here  the  verb  ex. 
presses  no  more  than  the  earnestness  of  their  endeavours. 


ClI.  V. 


S.  LUKE.  307 


CHAPTER  V. 


1.  A  ground  near  the  edge,  i'^ura  Traca  ry.v  MfA.wy-      E.  T. 
Standing  by  the  lake.  The  word  £?-«^5,  applied  to  a  ship  or  boat, 
means  either  being   at  anchor,  or  being  aground.     The  latter 
seems  here  the  more  probable  meaning,  for  the  following  rea- 
sons :   First,   The  :rAo(«,,   so  often  mentioned    in   the   Gospel, 
though  in   the  common  version  rendered  ships,  were,  in  reali- 
ty (if  we  may  judge  from  the  account  given  of  them  by  Jose, 
phus,   who  had  good  occasion  to  know,  having  had  for  some 
time'the  chief  command  in  Gallilee),  but  a  sort  of  large  fishing 
boats.     What  we  are  told,  v.  7.  that  the  fishes  taken  filled  both 
the  vessels,  insomuch  that  they  were  near  sinking,  is  a  strong 
confirmation  of  what  we  learn  from  him  concerning  their  size. 
I  have,  therefore,  in  this  and  other  places,  after  the  translators 
of  P.  11.  Si.  Sa.  Beau.  L.  CI.  and  other  Fr.  interpreters,  rendered 
the  word  barks,  distinguishing  the  diminntive  -uMia^iu.  by  trans- 
lating it  boats.     Even  the  largest  of  such  vessels  might  easily  be 
run  aground  or  set  afloat,  as  occasion  required.     Josephus  calls 
them  Ty,->c(p-^,  reckons  about  two  hundred  and  thirty  of  them   on 
the  lake,  and -four  or  five  men   to  each.      Another  reason  for 
thinking  that  the  word  £r»T»  here  means  rather  aground  than  at 
anchor,  is,  because-they  are  said  to  be,  not  a  rs?  A/^vsj,  but  -srct^ci, 
T>jv  A(^v;,v.    it  is  the  same  expression  which  is  used  in  the  preced- 
ing verse,  concerning  our  Lord  himself,  and  which,  by  conse- 
quence, must  mean  btside  the  water,  rather  than  in  it.    Thirdly, 
Our  Lord's  desire,  expressed  in  the  tliird  verse,  to  put  off  a  lit- 
tle from  the  land,  when  his  sole  purpose  was  to  teach  the  people, 
shows  that  they  were  so  close  upon  the  multitude  as  to  be  incom- 
moded by  them.     This  is  also  another  evidence  of  the  smallness 
of  the  vessels. 

7.  So  that  they  were  near  sinking,  a^-e  ^vii^i^rSat  avrcc.    E.  T.  ^ 
So  that  they  began  to  sink.     Vul.   It  a  ut  pxne  ii.ergere?itnr. 
The  Sy.  version  is  conformable  to  the  Vul.     Common  sense  in- 
deed shows,  that  (ivei^eo-xt   cannot  here  be  rigidly  interpreted. 
In  familiar  language,  words  are  often  used  with  equal  latitude. 

9.   For  the  draught  of  fishes  which  they  had  taken,  had  filled 
him  and  all  his  companions  zcith  terror,  ?yxy£<^  yao  irspsTZi^ 


308  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

«yrav  x^  ziw^raci  ry;  tvy  xvra^  eTTt  iyj  oty^x  <tuv  ly^^vm  tj  o-v))£?mQoV.  E. 
T.  For  he  ziHis  astonished,  and  all  that  were  z:iih  him,  at  the 
draught  ofthejishes  zohich  they  had  taken.  The  word  astonish, 
cd^  in  the  common  version,  is  far  too  weak  for  expressing  the 
effect  which  we  tlnd  this  miracle  produced  upon  Peter,  and  which 
evidently  had  in  it  more  oi  terror  than  astonishment.  I  have,  in 
V.  8th,  varied  from  my  ordinary  method,  and  rendered  Kvpu, 
Lord,  though  addressed  to  Jesus  before  his  resurrection.  I 
think  the  manner  in  which  Peter  appears  to  have  been  aftected, 
and  the  extraordinary  petition  he  presented  to  a  person  of  whose 
benevolence  and  humanity  he  had  been  so  oft  a  witness,  will  jus- 
tify this  alteration,  as  they  clearly  show  that  he  discovered  in 
his  Master,  on  this  occasion,  something  superior  to  human, 
which  quite  overwhelmed  him  with  awe  and  fear. 

10.  Thou  shall  catch  men,  avS-puTrm  em)  ^uy^m.  Dod.  Thou 
shall  captivate  men.  But  captivate  is  never  applied  to  Jishes, 
Consequently,  by  this  rendering,  the  trope  is  destroyed;  for 
(^aiy^iM  is  equally'  applicable  to  both.  Besides,  to  catch  expresses 
no  more  than  an  elTect ;  and  does  not,  of  itself,  imply  any  artifice 
in  the  means  ;  just  so  ^aypta  expresses  the  eflect,  without  either 
implying  or  excluding  artifice. 

26.  Incredible  thi?igs,  zrxpec^o^*.  E.  T.  Strange  things.  Thi» 
expression  is  rather  feeble.  Vul.  Mirabilia.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  In. 
credibilia.  Be.  Inopinata.  The  import  of  the  Gr.  word  is  bet- 
ter hit  by  Er.  Zu.  and  Cas.  than  by  either  of  the  other  La.  trans- 
lators. The  words  used  by  Be.  appears  at  first  to  be  the  most 
exact,  because  most  conformable  to  etymology,  zs-tt^a,  t^jv  ^fl|<«v, 
but  is  in  fact  the  weakest  of  all,  for  inopinatits  is  no  more  than 
unexpected:  now,  to  say  a  thing  is  unexpected,  is  not  saying  so 
much  as  it  is  strange.  It  may  be  observed  in  passing,  that  the 
term  occurs  in  no  other  place  of  the  N.  T.  and  is  not  found  in 
the  version  of  the  Seventy. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

1.  On  the  Sabbath  called  second.prime,  ev  'S.a^AnTu  ^Bvrepn' 
■n-^uTu.  E.  T.  On  the  second  Sabbath  after  the  first.  Vul.  Er. 
Zu.  Cas.  Sabbato  secundo  pritno.  Among  the  different  expla- 
nations which  are  given  of  the  term  hvripovquT®^  I  find  nothing 


S.  LUKE.  309 

but  conjecture,  and  therefore  think  it  is  the  safest  way  to  render 
the  word  by  one  similarly  formed  in  our  language.  This  is  what 
all  the  best  translators  have  done  in  La.  In  the  Sy.  there  is  no 
word  answering  to  it.  The  common  version  has,  in  this  instance, 
neither  followed  the  letter,  nor  given  us  words  which  convey  any 
determinate  sense. 

7.  Watched,  ^xperv^a^  »(>rov.  But  xvro^  is  %yanting  in  a  very 
great  number  of  MSS.  the  Al.  and  some  others  of  principal  note, 
tn  several  of  the  best  editions,  in  the  Vul.  Go.  and  Sax.  versions, 
&c.     It  is  rejected  both  by  Mill  and  by  Wet. 

9.  I  would  ask  you,  JVhal  is  it  landfill  to  do  on  the  Sabbath  ?       . 
Good  or  ill?   Eyrip^ry,.-^  ^f^^i   ^'*  E|^^'    ''«'«  2^€f^5-*v    ccycceo7roiy,<rxi, 
,  Kcc^TTC^^xi.     E.  T.  I  idll  ask  you  one  thing,  Is  it  laz^ful  on 
the  Sabbath  to  do  good,  or  to  do  evil  ?  But  a  great  many  MSS. 
and  printed  editions,  read  the  sentence  as  pointed  in  this  manner, 

which,  without  any  alteration  on  the  words  or  letters,  yields  the 
sense  here  expressed.  I  have  had  occasion  to  observe  that,  in 
regard  to  the  pointing,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  critic  is  en- 
titled  to  greater  freedom  of  conjecture  than  in  what  concerns  the 
words  themselves.  To  show,  however,  that  this  manner  of  dis- 
tinguishing  the  clauses  is  very  ancient,  it  is  proper  to  observe 
thai  both  the  Sy.  versions  and  the  Go.  are  made  from  the  sen- 
tence divided  in  the  manner  just  now  exhibited.  As  to  the  im- 
port of  the  question  it  contains,  see  Mr.  iii.  4.  N. 

12.  In  an  oratory,  ev  t--?  -srpoiT-ivx^  rs  Qm.  E.  T.  In  prayer  to 
God.  It  is  plain  that,  by  the  known  rules  of  construction,  the 
words  do  not  admit  this  interpretation.  The  common  significa. 
tion  of  ^pofrsvx^  is  indeed  ;)rrtj/er;  but  both  ^poT^vx,>,  and  Sr^Tn,  a 
term  of  nearly  the  same  import,  are  always,  in  the  N.  T.  con. 
strued  with  the  preposition  ^^®-  before  the  object  addressed. 
See  Acts  xii.  5.  Rom.  x.  1.  xv.  30.  Heb.  v.  7.  And  when  either^ 
term  is  followed  by  the  genitive  of  a  word,  denoting  a  person,  it  ^ 
is  invariably  the  person  praying,  not  the  person  prayed  to.  See 
Jam.  v.  16.  Rev.  v.  8.  viii.  3.  Though  the  words  occur  in  the 
Sep.  and  in  the  N.  T.  times  without  number,  the  genitive  is  not, 
in  a  single  instance,  employed  to  denote  the  being  to  whom  sup- 
plication is  made.  Such  a  mode  of  interpreting  would  be  sub. 
versive  of  the  analogy  of  the  language.  The  only  way  of  avoid- 
VOL.  IV.  39 


310  NOTES  ON  cH.  Ti. 

ing  this  error  here  is  by  assigning  another  meaning  to  (he  word. 
zr^oTevx^')  and  translating  it  a  house,  or  place  of  praijer,  an  ora- 
tor!/. That  there  is  undoubted  authority  for  this  meaning  of  the 
word,  is  shown  by  the  examples  produced  by  Wet.  from  Philo 
Jospphus,  and  othors.  L.  uses  it  again  in  the  same  sense,  Acts 
xvi.  13.  16.  As  the  word,  thus  applied,  peculiarly  regarded  the 
Jewish  worship,  it  was  as  much  appropriated  as  the  word  trwa. 
yayt,.  In  this  acceptation,  La.  writers  transferred  it  into  their 
language.     That  line  of  Juvenal  is  well  known,  Sat.  III. 

"  Kde  ubi  consistas,  in  qua  te  quxro  proseucha." 

Now,  when  the  meaning  is  a  house  of  prayer,  the  expression  «j 
■tspoTivy/i  rs  0£«  is  analogous  to  o  e(K®-  rs  05«,  the  he  use  of  God, 
and  TO  ispov  ra  ©£s,  the  temple  of  God  The  definite  article  sj'  pre- 
fixed, though  proper  in  the  historian,  speaking  of  a  place  known 
to  those  to  whom  his  history  was  immediately  addressed  (for  we 
generally  say  the  church,  where  there  is  but  one  church),  it  is 
not  necessary  in  a  translator  to  retain  ;  for,  to  his  readers,  such 
circumstances  must  rather  appear  indefinite.  The  addition  of  m 
©t»  was  necessary  in  Gr.  to  prevent  ambiguity,  its  import  is  im- 
plied in  the  word  oratory  in  Eng.  These  oratories,  according 
to  some,  were  enclosures  fenced  with  walls,  but  without  roof, 
not  like  the  synagogues,  and  the  temple,  o  v*®-,  strictly  so  call- 
ed ;  but  in  the  open  air,  like  the  courts  of  the  temple,  which 
were  comprehended  under  the  general  name  is^av,  and  in  respect 
of  their  destination,  were  also  oratories  or  places  of  prayer. 
(Ijpwis,  Grig.  Heb.  B.  iii.  Ch.  9.)  Oratories  were  not  erected  in 
cities  and  villages,  but  in  the  fields,  nigh  some  river,  or  in  the 
mountains.  They  appear  to  have  been  more  ancient  than  syna- 
gogues, and  perhaps  even  than  the  temple. 

15.  Called  the  zealous,  rov  KotXuf^i^ov  ^3jAa>T>jv.  E.  T.  Culled 
zelotes.  As  the  Sy.  word  Cauuanite,  used  in  the  parallel  place 
in  Mt.  is  susceptible  of  the  same  interpretation  with  the  Gr.  word 
used  here,  which  may  be  understood  either  as  an  epithet  or  as  a 
surname ;  and  as  it  was  not  uncommon,  in  writing  Gr.  to  trans- 
late the  Oriental  names  by  a  word  of  the  same  import  (thus 
Cephas  is  translated  Peter.,  Thomas  D/'di/mus,  Tabitha  Dorcas); 
it  is  very  probable  that  this  has  happened  in  the  prestMit  case.  It 
is  the  more  so,  as  there  was,  about  that  time,  a  party  in  Pales- 
tine, who  distinguished  themselves  by  (he  title  ^j-A^rs^/-  and  who 


CH.  VI.  S.  LUKE.  311 

though,  perhaps,  actuated  by  a  pious  intention  in  the  beginning, 
soon  degenerated,  and  became,  at  last,  the  greatest  scourge  ol" 
their  country,  and  the  immediate  cause  of  its  ruin.  But,  at  the  time 
referred  to  by  the  Evangelist,  as  they  had  not  perpetrated  those 
crimes  with  which  they  are  charged  by  the  historian,  nay,  were 
favoured  by  the  people  as  patriots,  and  men  who  bumf  with  zeal 
for  religion  ;  I  thought  it  better  to  render  ^jjA^Tsjy  here  tlie  zca. 
luus,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  w  ord  ;  as  it  appears  to  have 
been  the  iiitention  of  the  w  liter  to  acquaint  us  that  this  Simon 
had  belonged  formerly  to  the  party  so  denominated.  I  have 
said  the  zealous^  rather  than  the  zealot,  as  this  last  term  is  never 
used  by  us  but  in  a  bad  sense.  And  though,  indeed,  the  atrocious 
actions  of  the  ^-/iXutm  brought  at  last  the  very  name  into  disgrace, 
there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  mention  of  it  here  carries  any 
unfavourable  insinuation  along  with  it.     Mt.  x.  4.  N. 

22.  Separate  you  from  their  societi/,  a,<po^ia-umv  u^«;,  that  is. 
Expel  you  from  the  synagogue,  excommunicate  you. 

^  Defame  you,  cx.Soi?\.M<!-i  to  evof^,*  uf-iMv  &15  Tonj^ov.  E.  T.  Cast 
out  your  name  as  evil.  L.  Cl.  Beau.  Vous  dijfamera.  These 
Fr.  translators  have,  in  my  opinion,  expressed  the  full  import  of 
this  clause.  The  phrase  yi  Dc  Nnm  hotsia  shem  rang,  Deut. 
xxii.  19.  (which  corresponds  to  the  Gr.  expression  above  quoted) 
is  a  Heb.  circumlocution  for  defaming,  or  raising  and  propagat- 
ing an  evil  and  false  report.  This  interpretation,  beside  being 
more  perspicuous,  makes  the  words  exactly  coincide  in  sense 
with  the  parallel  passage,  Mt.  v.  11.  Now  there  is  ground  to 
think  that  the  sentiment  conveyed  in  both  places  is  tlie  same. 
For  whether  the  Evangelists  have  given  us  two  discourses,  deli- 
Tered  at  dilierent  times,  or  accounts  a  littb  diversified  of  the 
same  discourse,  the  general  coincidence  of  the  sentiments  is  evi- 
dent. It  may  be  objected  to  the  interpretation,  here  given,  that 
there  is,  in  one  point,  a  dissimilarity  in  the  expression  used  by  - 
Moses  and  that  employed  by  L.  there  being  nothing  in  the  Ileb^ 
corresponding  to  the  Gr.  «5-  Buta  small  diflerence  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  phrases  accounts  entirely  for  this  variation.  In 
the  passage  quoted  from  the  Pentateuch,  there  is  no  occasion  for 
a  pronoun  :  the  expression  is  general  and  indefinite,  Because  he 
hath  brought  up  (strictly,  set  forth)  an  evil  name  on  a  virgin 


312  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi, 

of  Israel.  In  the  Gr,  of  the  Evangelist,  the  expression  is  defi- 
nite and  particular,  being  specially  addressed  to  the  hearers,  and 
therefore  conjoined  with  the  pronoun  of  the  second  person.  It 
IS  not  ovif^x,  but  To  duf^x.  v/xm,  not  a  name  in  general,  but  tjour 
name  in  particular.  If,  therefore,  7rev>]pov  had  followed  without 
the  <y«,  there  would  have  been  an  implicit  acknowledgment  of  the 
truth  of  the  scandal,  and  their  enemies  would  have  been  charged 
only  with  publishing  it.  As  it  stands,  it  entirely  corresponds 
to  the  expression  in  Mt.  Accuse  you  falseltf  of  every  evil  thing. 

24,  25,  26.    TVo  unto  you — Ovoct  6f/jv.  The  form  of  expression 
in  both  languages,  in  these  verses,  so  much  coincides  with  what 
we  are  rarely  accustomed  to  hear,  except  in  passionate  impreca- 
tions, that  it  is  no  wonder  they  should  be,  in  some  measure,  mis- 
understood by  the  majority  of  readers.     That  such  words  were 
often  directed  against  those  who  were  not  only  bad  men,  but  the 
avowed  enemies  of  our  Lord,  is  a  circumstance  which  heightens 
this  appearance  of  imprecation,  and  renders  it  difficult  for  us  to 
conceive  otherwise  of  the  expressions.     Some  have  called  them 
authoritative  denunciations  of  judgments  ;  but  this,  I  am  afraid, 
is  but  a  softer  way  of  expressing  the  same  thing.      Our  Lord  is 
not  here  acting  in  the  character  of  judge,  pronouncing  sentence 
on  the  guilty,  or  dooming  them  to  punishment.     The  office  of 
judge  is  part  of  that  glory  to  which  he  was  not  to  be  exalted  till 
after  his  humiliation  and  sufferings.     But  he  speaks  here,  in  my 
apprehension,  purely  in  the  character  of  prophet,  or  teacher, 
divinely  enlightened  as  to  the  consequences  of  men's  actions,  and 
whose  zeal  for  their  good  obliged  him  to  give  them  warning.  But 
that  this  explanation  may  not  appear  merely  conjectural,  let  the 
following  consideraions,  for  ascertaining  the  import  of  the  in- 
terjection, be  impartially  attended  to.     The  only  satisfactory 
evidence,  in  such  cases,  is  the  actual  application  of  the  word. 
Now,  as  to  its  application  in  the  instances  before  us,  there  are 
four  classes  against  whom  zooe  is  pronounced.        These  are; 
— the  rich,  — they  that  are  full.,  — they  zoho  laugh,  — they  of 
whom  men  speak  zsell.  Now,  that  we  may  apprehend  more  exact- 
ly the  view  with  which  they  were  uttered,  let  us  consider  the  four 
classes  (for  they  also  are  four),  in  verses  20,  21,  and  22.  which 
are,  with  like  solemnity,  pronounced  happy.     These  are:  — the 
poor,  — they  that  hunger,  — they  that  zoeep,  — they  of  zchom 


CH.  VI.  S.  LUKE.  313 

men  speak  ill.  No  one  can  be  at  a  loss  to  perceive  that  these 
are  manifestly  and  intentionally  contrasted  ;  the  characters  in  the 
former  class  being  no  other  than  those  of  the  latter  reversed.  And 
if  so,  by  all  the  rules  of  interpretation,  the  mood  or  form  of  the 
sentence  must  be  the  same  in  both.  Now  as  these  MxKxpioi  s'< 
7rrup(^oi^  X.,  r.  t.  have  ever  been  considered  as  declarative,  and  net 
as  expressing  a  prayer  or  wish ;  the  other  must  be  understood  in 
the  same  manner.  The  substantive  verb,  therefore,  to  be  sup- 
plied (for  in  both  cases  it  is,  agreeably  to  the  Hebrew  idioir), 
veanting  in  the  original),  is  in  the  indicative,  and  not  in  the  op- 
tative or  the  imperative.  Woe  is  unto  you,  not  xcoe  be  unto 
you.  Vox  est,  says  Gro.  dnlentis,  non  ira  incensi.  Again,  let 
us  consider  a  little  the  expression,  Mt.  xxiv.  19.  in  our  Lord's 
prediction  of  the  calamities  coming  on  Jerusalem  and  the  Jewish 
nation  ;  Ovcct  t«<5  sv  yar^ <  e;^jyo-«(s,  }^  tm<;  B^niXot^airciti;  sv  sKs-ivct";  txk; 
ii/n-s^xii.  JVoe  to  the  zcomen  icith  child,  and  to  them  that  give 
suck  in  those  days.  As  nobody  can  be  so  foolish  as  to  ima- 
gine that  either  pregnancy,  or  the  suckling  of  children,  are  here 
exhibited  as  criminal  ;  to  understand  this  otherwise  than  as  a 
declaration  of  the  unhappiness  of  w  omen  in  these  circumstances, 
at  such  a  time  of  general  calamity,  were  absurd  in  an  uncommon 
degree.  The  parallel  passage  in  L.  xxiii.  29.  where  we  have  the 
same  prophecy,  would  remove  every  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  the 
meaning,  if  it  were  possible  that,  to  the  attentive  and  judicious, 
there  could  be  any  :  The  days  are  coming  zchei'ein  they  shall 
say,  Happy  the  barren,  the  wombs  zchich  never  bare,  and  the 
breasts  zchich  never  gave  suck.  That  these  words  are  declara- 
tive, is  what  no  person  ever  called  in  question.  If  we  recur  to 
the  O.  T.  we  have  the  clearest  proofs  that  the  w  ord  in  Heb.  ren- 
dered am  in  the  Sep.  is  commonly  employed  to  express  not  wrath 
and  execration,  but  the  deepest  concern  and  lamentation.  Accord- 
ingly we  find,  in  several  instances,  the  word  construed  with  the 
pronoun  of  the  first  person,  axt  i]y.tv,  and  axi  y^t,  z^oe  unto  us,  and 
woe  unto  me  ;  in  which  cases,  to  avoid  ambiguity,  our  translators 
might  have  said  always,  as  they  have  done  in  some  places,  zcoe  is  us^ 
and  zooe  is  me,  which,  though  perhaps  too  familiar  for  the  solemn 
style  of  Scripture,  exactly  hits  the  sense  of  the  original.  But 
in  those  places,  it  must  be  owned,  nobody  seems  to  have  mista- 
ken the  words  for  an  imprecation.  See  1  Sam.  iv.  7,  8.  Jer.  iv. 
13.  vi.  4.  Lam.  v.  16.  both  in  the  Sep.  and  in  the  E.  T.    In  line. 


314  NOTES  ON 


CH.  TI. 


as  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  destroy  men'' s  lives,  but  to  save 
them;  he.  came  not  to  curse,  but  to  bless  us,  by  turning  away 
every  one  of  ns  from  his  iniquities.  The  words  which  pi oceedtd 
out  of  his  mouth  were,  in  ever)  sense,  jusdy  denoraiuated  j'u/^ 
of  grace.     His  example  was  pertectiy  conformable  to  his  in. 
structions:  and  I  will  venture  to  aliirni  that,  the  more  narrowly 
we  examine  his  discourses,  the  more  we  shall  he  convinced,  that 
nothing  he  ever  uttered  against  any  living  being,  if  candidly  in- 
terpreted, will  be  found  to  bear  any  the  least  aihnity  to  an  im- 
precation.    Wa.  in  his  translation  of  Mt.  renders  hm,  ch.  xi.  21. 
and  in  other  places,  alas!  Thus:   Ovxt  a-ei  X«/3«if<w  is,  with  him, 
Alas !  for  thee,  Chorazi?i !  But  though  he  has   so  far  hit  the 
sense,  in   making  this  particle  an  interjection  of  pity  and  grief, 
not  of  anger  or  resentment,  there   is  a  feebleness  in  the  expres- 
sion which  ill  befits  the  importance  of  the  occasion.     It  would 
suit  well  enough  for  expressing  a  transient  regret  on  account  of 
some  trilling  accident ;  but  so  slight  an  indication  of  sorrow,  in 
a  matter  of  such  ineffable  consequence  as  that  which  affects  men's 
eternal  interests,  has  a  worse  effect,  and  looks  more  like  insen- 
sibility,  than  the  absence  of  every   outward  indication.     The 
common  rendering  has  this  advantage,  that  it  represents  the  sub- 
ject as  serious,  yea,  momentous  :  and  as  the  use  of  the  idiom,  in 
other  places  of  the  E.  T.  as  well  as   in  the  original,  puts  it  be- 
yond all  doubt,  that  it  is  often  the  voice  of  lamentation,  and  not 
of  wrath,  I  thought  it,  on  the  whole,  better  to  retain  it;  and, 
for  removing  every  appearance  of  ambiguity,  to  give  this  expla- 
nation in  a  note. 

26.  J'Vhe?i  men  shall  speak  well  of  you,  ot«v  xx?Mi  u^«?  H-Triarn 
rrxvTii  01  uv6p6)7roi.  The  word  Trct^Tn  is  wanting  in  many  MSS. 
some  of  them  of  principal  note  ;  and  also  in  the  Sy.  Vul.  Eth. 
and  Ara.  versions,  as  well  as  in  several  of  the  best  editions  and 
ancient  commentators.     Mill  and  Wet.  both  reject  it. 

35.  Nowise  despairing,  iMtStv  u7re?i7n^9VT£i.  E.  T.  Hoping  for 
nothing  again.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Be.  Nihil  inde  sjer antes. 
Such  a  concurrence,  in  the  La.  interpreters,  has  ensured,  as 
might  have  been  expected,  the  imitation  of  a!ll  the  first  transla- 
tors into  modern  European  tongues;  insomuch  that  this  iater- 
pretation  seems  to  have  become,  till  of  late,  universal  in  the  West. 
But  from  this  the  Sy.  and  Oriental  versions  differ  considerably. 


CH.  VI.  S.  LUKE.  315 

I  agree  with  Wet.  and  others,  in  rejecting  it,  because  I  see  no 
reason  for  thinking  that  aTrsATrji^wv  has  ever,  either  in  classical 
writers,  or  in  sacred,  any  such  meaning.  ,This,  indeed,  is  the 
only  place  in  the  N.  T.  where  it  occurs.  The  passive  partici- 
ple ccTTiiXTTicrf/.sv'^,  is  found  once  in  the  Sep.  Is.  xxix.  19.  answer- 
ing to  a  word  signifying  indigent,  or,  as  we  should  say,  hopeless. 
It  is  used,  in  the  same  sense,  Judith  ix.  11.  The  verb  a5rfPi;r<- 
^?tv  occurs  in  three  other  places  of  the  Apocryphal  writings,  but 
In  none  of  them  is  susceptible  of  any  other  interpretation  than  to 
lose  hope,  to  despond.  This  is  also  the  classical  sense  of  the 
word.  The  only  reason  I  can  discover,  which  has  induced  ex. 
positors  to  give  it  a  contrary  meaning,  and  to  make  it  signify  to 
hope  for  something  back,  seems  to  have  been  the  notion  that  the 
verse,  thus  interpreted,  makes  the  best  contrast  to  the  preceding 
words,  Ij  ye  lend  to  those  onltj  from  zcho?n  ye  hope  to  receive 

I  acknowledge  that,  in   the  common  version,  there  is  the 

appearance  of  a  stronger  contrast,  than  in  the  translation  which 
I  have  given  ;  but  if  it  were  so,  this  is  not  a  sutiicient  reason  for 
affixing  a  meaning  to  the  word  so  unprecedented,  especially 
when  its  ordinary  acceptation  suits  the  scope  of  the  passage. 
Besides,  the  contrast,  I  suspect,  is  not  so  pointed  as  some  ima- 
gine. From  whom  ye  hope  to  receive,  does  not,  in  my  notion, 
suggest  the  restitution  of  the  loan,  but  the  like  good  office  in  re- 
turn.    It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  '  If  ye  lend  to  those  only  from 

'  whom  ye  yourselves  may  have  occasion  to  borrow, '  for 

this,  it  must  be  owned,  is  merely  a  selfish  intercourse.  But  the 
very  term,  to  lend,  implies  the  stipulation  of  the  return  of  what 
is  lent  (otherwise  it  would  not  be  called  lent,  but  given)  :  nor 
does  this  stipulation  annihilate  the  humanity  of  the  action  in 
lending  money,  especially  to  a  very  poor  man,  since  the  lender 
gratuitously  gives  the  borrower  the  use  of  his  property,  while  he 
himself  runs  the  hazard  of  the  loss.  Let  it  be  observed  that,  by 
lending,  I  do  not  mean,  here,  putting  out  money  at  interest ;  for 
this  is  an  atlair  merely  commercial,  and  comes  not,  unless  in  par- 
ticular circumstances,  under  the  class  of  good  offices.  Now,  had 
the  verb  ctTc-iXvu^u  been  capable  of  the  meaning  which  those  inter, 
preters  assign  to  it,  it  would  have  been  more  apposite  to  subjoin 
}^tjhv  ctTtreXTrK^ovre^  immediately  after  ayxOoTretiire,  leaving  out  x^ 
J£v«^e-7-e  altogether,  for  this  rather  hurts  the  sense.  Again,  there 
are  some  who,  sensible  that  xviXtfi^hv   does   not  admit  the  in. 


316  NOTES  ON  ch.  vi. 

terpretation  which  the  Vul.  has  given  it,  and  that  its  ordinary 
meaning  is  to  despair^  think  that,  by  a  sort  of  Hebraism,  it  may 
be  interpreted,  here,  actively,  to  cause  to  despair.  These  make 
a  small  alteration  on  the  preceding  word,  saying,  iM/j^ev»  (not  fts- 
hv)  uTTiXTi^ovrtq^  causing  none  to  despair,  to  wit,  of  relief  when 
in  straits.  This  gives  a  good  sense,  and  not  unsuitable  to  the 
scope  of  the  context.  But  though  some  neuter  verbs  are,  in  the 
Hellenistic  idiom,  sometimes  active,  expressing  the  force  of  the 
Heb.  conjugation  hiphil,  we  have  no  evidence  that  this  ever  took 
place  in  this  verb  ;  for  it  cannot  be  affirmed,  that  it  holds  of  all 
neuter  verbs  indiscriminately.  Besides,  there  is  no  MS.  which 
reads  f^hvx,  and  there  is  no  necessity,  in  the  present  case,  for 
even  a  small  deviation  from  the  acknowledged  reading,  or  from 
the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  words.  In  further  support  of 
the  translation  here  given,  let  it  be  observed,  that  what  common- 
ly proves  the  greatest  hindrance  to  our  lending,  particularly  to 
needy  persons,  is  the  dread  that  we  shall  never  be  repaid.  It' is, 
I  imagine,  to  prevent  the  influence  of  such  an  over-cautious  mis- 
trust, that  our  Lord  here  warns  us  not  to  shut  our  hearts  against 
the  request  of  a  brother  in  difficulties.  '  Lend  cheerfully,'  as 
though  he  had  said,  '  without  fearing  the  loss  of  what  shall  be 
'  thus  bestowed.  It  often  happens  that,  even  contrary  to  ap- 
'  pearances,  the  loan  is  thankfully  returned  by  the  borrower  ; 

*  but  if  it  should  not,  remember  (and  let  this  silence  all  your 

*  doubts)  that  God  chargeth  himself  with  what  you  give  from 

*  love  to  him,  and  love  to  your  neighbour.   He  is  the  poor  man's 

*  surety.'  It  may  not  be  improper  to  add,  that  several  La.  MSS. 
read,  agreeably  to  the  interpretation  here  given,  nihil  desperan- 
tes.  It  is  not  impossible,  that  from  despet^anies  has  sprung, 
through  the  inadvertency,  or  haste,  of  some  transcriber,  the  pre- 
sent reading  inde  sperantes. 

37.  Release,  and  ye  shall  he  released,  avoXvire  }^  x7reXv$->}FST~ 
B-e.  E.  T.  Forgive,  and  1/e  shall  be  forgiven.  Vul.  Dimittite, 
et  dimittemini.  Though  the  forgiveness  of  injuries  is  doubtless 
included  in  the  precept,  it  ought  not  to  be  limited  to  this  mean- 
ing. When  these  are  specially  intended,  the  word  used  by  the 
Evangelists,  particularly  L.  is  cKpajf^^t,  not  ecroXva.  The  latter 
implies  equally  discharging  from  captivity,  from  prison,  from 
debt.     Of  the  like  import  is  the  La.  dimitto. 


CH.  vn.  S.  LUKE.  317 


CHAPTER  VII. 

3,  It  zcas  he  who  built,  xvro^  aya^of^rjcsv.  E.  T.  He  hath  built. 
The  pronoun  xvroi;  is,  here,  evidently  emphatical,  being  otherwise 
unnecessary.  It  is  only  in  some  such  way  as  taken  in  this  version, 
that  the  emphasis  can  be  expressed  in  Eng,   Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  32. 

-  Our  synagogue,  njv  trvtxyuyrt')  vf^^iv.  E.  T.  Us  a  synagogue. 
Had  the  expression  in  Gr.  been  o-vvoiyuyi^v  ij/a.iv,  without  the  arti- 
cle, it  could  not  have  been  more  exactly  rendered  than  as  in  the 
common  translation  ;  but,  v/'rih  the  article,  it  evidently  denotes, 
either  that  there  was  but  one  synagogue  in  that  city,  or  that 
there  was  only  one  in  which  those  elders  were  concerned.  In 
either  case,  it  ought  to  be  our  synagogue. 

9.  Admired  him,  cSav/^xcrev  xvrev.  Vul.  Miratus  est ;  agree- 
ably to  which  version  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  omit  (tvrov. 
The  Sax.  also  omits  the  pronoun. 

II.  Accompanied  by  his  disciples,  (ri}v$7ro^evo)iTo  atvra  oi  f^xStirxi 
xvrs  'iKxvei.  E.  T.  Many  of  his  disciples  went  with  him.  But 
iKxioi  is  wanting  in  three  of  the  principal  MSS.  and  in  the  Sy. 
Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions,  there  is  no  word  answering 
to  it,  it  is,  therefore,  rejected  by  some  critics. 

16.  God  hath  visited  his  people,  e7rsrx.e-<pxro  o  0£»?  rov  Astav 
xvra.  But  does  not  the  Eng.  visited  sometimes  mean  punished? 
It  does  ;  and  so  does  the  Gr.  i7re<rx.iil/xTa.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  favourable,  and  the  unfavourable  meaning,  is,  in  both 
languages,  made  easily,  though  solely,  by  the  words  in  con- 
nection. 

29.  All  the  people.  I  have  marked  this,  and  the  following 
verse,  as  the  words  of  Jesus.  Some  have,  improperly,  consider- 
ed them  as  spoken  by  the  Evangelist,  acquainting  us  that  the  peo- 
ple who  heard  what  Jesus  said  at  this  time,  concerning  John, 
glorified  God,  by  an  immediate  recourse  to  John  for  baptism. 
But  this  cannot  be  the  sense,  for  John  was  then,  as  we  learn  from 
Mt.  xi.  2.  in  prison,  where  he  remained  till  his  death,  and  so  had 
it  no  longer  in  his  power  to  baptize  any.    Besides,  it  was  John's 

TOL.    IV.  40 


318  NOTES  ON  en.  vii. 

office  to  bring  disciples  to  Jesus,  whose  harbinger  he  was,  and 
not  the  office  of  Jesus  to  bring  disciples  to  John. 

^  Have  honoured  God,  ehKctiaa-av  rov  ©£ov.  E.  T.  Justified 
God.  As  this  expression  is  obscure,  some  prefer,  have  acknoio- 
ledged  the  justice  of  God  ;  which,  though  favoured  by  etymolo- 
gy, does  not  reach  the  meaning,  A.iicMoa  is  doubtless  from  ^ikoh^, 
but  does  not  here  imply  a  vindication  of  God's  justice,  more 
than  of  his  wisdom  or  goodness.  This  clause  is  a  proper  contrast 
to  that  which  follows.  As  those  who  refused  John's  baptism, 
dishonoured  God,  by  rejecting  his  counsel,  those  who  received 
John's  baptism,  honoured  God,  by  following  his  counsel. 

30.  Have  i^ejected  the  counsel  of  God  zcith  regard  to  them. 
selves.,  Tijv  fiaXtj]!  m  ©£«  vikT-^Tc<.)>  «?  eavTm.  E.  T.  Rejected  the 
counsel  of  God  against  themselves ;  meaning,  doubtless,  ihey^ 
against  themselves  (that  is,  to  their  own  prejudice),  rejected  the 
counsel  of  God.  This  sense  is  good,  but  it  is  ambiguousl)-  ex- 
pressed in  the  common  translation.  Our  translators  have  also 
given,  on  the  margin,  another  version,  which  is  preferred  by  se- 
veral. They  rejected  within  themselves  the  counsel  of  God.  I 
think,  with  Gro.  that,  of  the  three  senses  given  above,  the  first 
is  worthy  of  the  preference.  The  preposition  «5,  often  denotes 
with  regard  to,  in  relation  to.  The  second  meaning,  which  is 
that  of  the  common  version,  does  not  naturally  arise  from  the 
words.  And  to  say,  they  rejected  within  themselves,  seems  not 
very  apposite  to  what  follows  in  the  sentence,  which  shows  that 
the  rejection  was  open  and  notorious. 

31.  E(7re  h  0  Kvfiiog.  E.  T.  And  the  Lord  said.  But  in  Gr. 
this  clause  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  MSS.  both  of  great  and 
of  small  account.  It  is  in  neither  of  the  Sy.  versions,  nor  in  the 
Ara.  Eth.  Cop.  and  Sax.  In  many  La.  MSS.  also,  and  ancient 
commentaries,  it  is  not  to  be  found.  It  is  omitted  by  some  of 
the  best  editors,  and  rejected  by  Gro.  Mill,  Wet.  and  other 
critics.  If  I  might  indulge  a  conjecture,  as  to  what  has  given 
rise  to  the  insertion  of  these  words,  I  should  say,  that  some 
reader,  mistaking  the  two  preceding  verses  for  the  words  of  the 
historian,  has  thought  some  such  clause  necessary  for  preventing 
mistakes,  by  showing  that  our  Lord,  in  what  followed,  resumed 
the  discourse.  The  strong  evidence  which  we  have,  that  this  is 
an  interpolation,  proves  also,  in  some  degree,  that  there  was  no 


CH.  VII.  S.  LUKE.  319 

interruption  in  our  Lord's  discourse,  and  that,  consequently,  the 
two  preceding  verses  are  part  of  it. 

35.  But  wisdom  is  justified  by  all  her  children,  ;c«»  thKcauh 
^    ^6(pix  ccTTc  T*'v  riKmv  ccvry.g  -xuvrm.     Cas.  Ita  suis  omnibus  aliena 
sapientia.     This  most  extraordinary  interpretation  that  author 
defends  in  a  note  on  the  parallel  passage,  Mt.  xi.   19.     The  ex. 
amples  ^vhich  he  produces  show,  indeed,  that  hy-Msv  sometimes 
means  to  release  or  deliver  from  evil  or  danger;  and  to  this  its 
most  common  signification  is  nearly  related.    To  justify,  (which 
is,  originally,  a  law  term,  and  coincides  with  to  acquit,  to  ab. 
solve),  necessarily  implies  deliverance  from  the  evil  of  a  crimi- 
nal accusation,  and  the  danger  of  punishment.     But  this  is  very 
different  from  the  sense  given,  in  his  translation,  of  this  verse, 
which  is,  alienated  from,  averse  to.     Had  h^s  rendering  been 
liberata,  or  soluta  est  sapientia,  his  quotations  would  have  been 
a  little  more  to  the  purpose.     Eisner  goes   still  farther,   and 
maintains  that  i^iKxiuiir,  ought  here  to  be  rendered,  is  condemned. 
And  for  this  signification  he  produces,  as  vouchers,   Euripides 
and  Thucydides,  the  purity  of  whose  language,  if  that  concerned 
the  present  question,  will  not  be  disputed.     But  it  is  surprising, 
that  though  <?(y-«/«v  is  one  of  the  most  common  verbs  in  the  N.  T.  , 
in  the  Gr.  version  of  the  Old,  and  in  the  Apocryphal  books, 
written  in  the  idiom  of  the  synagogue,  a  single  example  has  not 
been  found  in  any  of  these  to  support  an  interpretation  so  foreign 
to  the  manner  of  the  sacred  writers,  who  confessedly,  in  every 
other  instance,  employ  the  term  in  a  favourable  meaning,  and 
with  very  little  difterence  of  signification.     The  uniformity  on 
this  head  is,  indeed,  so  great,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  any 
one  of  them  using  it  in  a  sense  so  contrary  to  its  universal  accep. 
tation  among  them,  without,  at  the  same  time,  supposing  him  to 
have  intended  either  to  mislead  his  readers,  or  to  express  himself 
so   as  not  to  be  understood  by  them.      For,  must  he  not  have 
been  sensible  that,  if  he  had  intended  to  say  justified,  vindicated, 
Juxw6>,  is  the  very  term  he  would  have  used  ?  We  have  all  the 
reason  in  the  world  to  think  so  from  their  uniform  practice. 
Now,  could  any  man  in   his  senses,  who  seriously  designed  to 
speak  intelligibly,  use  the  same  term  for  expressing  things  so 
opposite  as  to  justify,  and  to  condemn?  Was  it  that  the  language 
atlorded  no  term  appropriated  to  this  last  signification  ?    The 
want  of  proper  words  sometimes,  no  doubt,  occasions  the  recourse 


320  NOTES  ON  ch.  vii. 

to  such  as  are  equivocal  But  there  was  no  want  here  ;  y-xto,. 
xf«v«v,  x£«T«(J/Koe^«v,  x.xra.yi'icoo-y.eiv^  were  quite  suitable,  and  in  fa- 
miliar use.  To  conclude  ;  the  gross  impropriety  of  using  huaiav 
here  for  to  condemn^  would  have  been  the  more  glaring,  as  the 
same  verb  had  been  used  in  this  very  discourse,  v.  29.  (a  passage 
to  which  the  present  bears  a  manifest  reference)  in  its  ordinary 
acceptation.  I  need  scarcely  add,  that  I  am  of  the  opinion  of 
Gro.  on  this  point,  that  what  is  called  the  counsel  of  God,  v.  30. 
is  here  denominated  zcisdotii,  and  that  by  her  children  are  not 
meant  the  wise  and  learned,  in  the  world's  account,  such  as  their 
scribes  and  doctors  of  the  law,  a  race  remarkably  arrogant  and 
contemptuous  ;  but  the  unassuming,  the  humble,  and  the  pious  in- 
quirers into  the  will  of  God.  This  interpretation,  which  is  the 
most  obvious  to  a  translator,  because  resulting  from  the  most 
Common  acceptation  of  the  words,  appears  to  me  the  most  per- 
spicuous in  itself,  and  the  best  suited  to  the  scope  of  the  dis- 
course. 

38.  Standing  behind.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3,  4,  5,  6. 
^    Weeping,  Y-XMarot,.     This  word  is  wanting  in  one  Gr.  MS. 
and  is  not  rendered  in  the  Vul.  nor  the  Sax. 

45.  Since  she  entered,  cc(p'  jj'?  inrixSov.  E.  T.  Since  the  time 
I  came  in.  I  have,  in  this  instance,  ventured  to  give  the  pre- 
ference to  the  reading  which  has  the  weaker  support  of  MSS. 
(for  they  are  but  a  few,  and  not  the  most  considerable,  which 
read  «5-;)A^£v) ;  first,  on  account  of  the  authority  which  the  most 
ancient  and  respectable  translations  give  it ;  for  thus  the  Vul. 
both  the  Sy.  and  the  Cop.  read:  Secondly,  because  the  differ- 
ence in  writing  is  so  inconsiderable,  that  the  smallest  inadver- 
tency, either  in  copying,  or  in  attending  to  what  is  dictated  by 
another,  may  account  for  it ;  the  whole  arising  from  the  mistake 
of  one  small  letter  for  another,  the  t  for  the  «  :  Thirdly,  because 
there  is  greater  internal  probability  in  the  reading  of  the  Vul. 
from  its  agreeing  better  with  the  context,  which  represents  the 
woman  as  coming  to  Simon's  house  (v.  37.)  after  she  had  learnt 
that  Jesus  was  there.  Now,  if  Jesus  was  there  before  her,  the 
action  could  be  dated  only  from  her  entering,  not  from  his.  So 
slight  a  circumstance  as  this  in  the  connection  is  very  apt  to  be 
overlooked  in  the  hurry  of  transcribing,  especially  when  the 
words  themselves  read  well  enough  either  way.     But,  where  the 


CH.  Vlll.  ^'    L'^'^'^' 

difiference  in  writing  is  more  considerable,  a  reading  ought  not 
to  be  so  easily  admitted  in  favour  of  the  scope  of  the  place, 
against  a  great  plurality  of  MSS.  because,  in  this  case,  the  alter- 
ation  cannot  be  so  plausibly  charged  on  oversight. 

47.  Therefore  her  love  is  great,  on  r,yxTtj(re  ttoXv.  E.  T.  For 
she  loved  much.  Beau.  C' est  pour  cela  qu'elle  a  taut  aime.  The 
whole  context  shows  that  the  particle  or;  is  illative  and  not  cau. 
sal  in  this  place.  The  parable  of  the  debtors  clearly  represents 
the  gratuitous  forgiveness  as  the  cause  of  the  love,  not  the  love  as 
the  cause  of  the  forgiveness.  And  this,  on  the  other  hand,  is, 
V.  50th,  ascribed  to  her  faith.  This  interchange  of  the  conjunc 
tions  in  and^wTi,  in  the  scriptural  idiom,  has  been  well  iUustraf. 
ed  by  Ham.  Wh.  and  Markland.     See  Bowyer's  conjectures. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

1.  Proclaiming  the  joyful  tidings  of  the  reign  of  God,  ^n^vc-^ 
c-«v  Kdt  evayyeXi^o^^i  r^v  ^xa;Xs,M  m  0£«.  The  import  of  both 
the  participles  here  used  is  fully  expressed  in  the  version  ;  only 
the  latter  points  more  directly  to  the  nature  of  the  message,>j/. 
ful  tidings,  the  former  to  the  manner  of  executing  it,  to  wit,  by 
proclamation.     Diss.  VI.  P-  V. 

15.  Persevere  in  bringing  forth  fruit,  x.ccp7ri>(po^iie-iv  ev  Cmy-en- 
E.  T.  Bring  forth  fruit  with  patience.  'rTrof^vT,  is,  in  the  com- 
mon version,  generally  rendered  patience,  for  the  most  pari, 
feebly,  and  in  this  and  some  other  places,  improperly.  Patience, 
in  the  ordinary  acceptation,  is  a  virtue  merely  passive,  and  con- 
sists in  suffering  evil  with  equanimity.  The  Gr.  'vxofMn  implies 
much  more ;  and,  though  the  sense  now  mentioned  is  not  ex- 
cluded, it  generally  denotes  an  active  quality,  to  wit,  constancy 
in  purpose  and  practice.  It  corresponds  exactly  to  what  is  with 
us  C9.\\edi  perseverance.  The  word,  in  Scripture,  which  strictly 
answers  to  the  Eng.  iGvm  patience,  is  f^xK^oSvf^tx,  commonly  ren. 
dercd  long. suffering, a.od  but  tviice patience.  In  several  such  in. 
stances,  when  an  Eng,  appellative  is  directly  formed  from  the 
La.  our  translators,  with  other  moderns,  have  implicitly  follow, 
ed   the  Vul.   which  says  here,  Frnc-tum  afferunt  in  patient ia ; 


322  NOTES  ON  ch.  tiii. 

iior  is  this  the  only  place  wherein  uTrof/^ivt}  is  so  rendered  in  that 
translation.  Now,  it  deserves  our  notice  that,  though  the  other 
La.  interpreters  have  in  this  copied  the  Vul.  they  appear  sensi- 
ble that  they  have  not  expressed  sufficiently  the  import  of  the 
original,  and  have  therefore  corrected  their  own  version  on  the 
margin,  or  in  the  notes.  Thus  Be.  who  renders  iv  uwo/iieu)  here 
cum  patieniia,  says,  in  a  note,  "  ad  verbum  cjim  persisfentia.^* 
Now,  though  persisientia  is  not  a  La.  word,  and  therefore  might 
not  have  been  judged  proper  to  be  admitted  into  his  translation, 
yet,  as  being  formed  from  persisfo,  in  like  manner  as  Jtto^ov;; 
from  o5r«;M,£v»,  answering  to  persisto^  it  can  only  mean  perseve- 
rance, constancy,  and  ought  to  have  been  rendered  persevei^m- 
iia,  which  is  at  once  classical  La.  and  expressive  of  tlie  sense, 
and  consequently  not  liable  to  the  objections  which  may  be 
pleaded  against  either  of  those.  Nor  is  Be.  singular  in  using 
the  word />a<2VM//«,  though  sensible  that  it  does  not  convey  the 
meaning.  The  words  in  L.  xxi.  19.  ev  t?)  vTro/^vri  KTtju-as-B-e  t«s 
i^/v^xi  vf.iMv,  Cas.  thus  renders,  both  obscurely  and  improperly, 
and  in  no  respect  literally,  Vcstrd  fiatientid  vestrce  saliUi  consiu 
lite,  putting  on  the  margin,  Perseverate  ad  extremum,  et  salvi 
eritis,  which  is  a  just  interpretation  of  the  Gr.  and  ought  to 
have  been  in  the  text.  This  conduct  of  Cas.  is  the  more  unac- 
countable, as  he  never  affects  to  trace  the  words  or  the  construc- 
tion, but  seems  to  have  it  for  a  constant  rule,  overlooking  every 
other  circumstance,  to  express  the  sense  of  his  author  in  classi- 
cal and  perspicuous  La.  But  I  can  see  no  reason  why  patienlia 
should  be  considered  as  a  literal  version  of  'vTrofMvv),  unless  the 
custom  of  finding  the  one  in  the  Vul.  where  the  other  is  in 
the  Gr.  has  served  instead  of  a  reason.  'Ytto/^v)]  is  a  derivative 
from  'vTrof^svat,  as  patientia  frompaiior;  but  'vTrof^tm  is  never  ren- 
dered patior,  else  I  should  have  thought  that  an  immoderate  at- 
tention to  etymology  (which  has  great  inlluenceon  literal  trans, 
lators)  had  given  rise  to  it.  It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  not  to  be 
denied,  that  patience  is,  in  some  places,  the  proper  version  of 
'vTTofMVii ;  nor  is  it  difffcult,  from  the  connection,  to  discover 
when  that  term  expresses  the  sense.  For  example,  when  it  is 
spoken  of  as  necessary  in  affliction,  under  temptation,  or  during 
the  delay  of  any  promised  good,  nobody  is  at  a  loss  to  discover 
what  is  the  virtue  recommended.  But  where  there  is  nothing  in 
the  context  to  limit  it  in  this  manner,  it  ought  to  be  rendered  by 


CH.  VIII. 


S.  LUKE.  323 


some  such  word  as  perseverance^  continuance^  constancy  ;  and, 
considering  the  ordinary  import  of  the  verb  'vTroi^sva/^  this  may  be 
called  a  more  literal,  because  a  more  analogical,  as  well  as  a  more 
exact,  interpretation  than  the  other.     The  impropriety  of  the 
common  rendering  is,  in  some  places,  manifest.     How  awkward- 
ly is  ^i'  'rjTToi^om  T^ez'^H-'-v  (Heb.  xii.  3.)  represented  by  Let  us 
run  with  patience  ?  So  passive  a  quality  as  patience  is  ill  adapt- 
ed to  express  the  uninterniitted   activity   exerted  in    running. 
Better,  hel  us  run  mthout  intermission.  And  to  produce  but  one 
other  example  from  tlie  same  epistle,  x.  36.  't7Toy.an,i  yxs   ex-^-^t 
^peiciVy   Ivx,  To    5eAs}|it.«   rs   GeH  TS-oiy.Txyrei,  xay^inry^rSs   t>)V  iTrxyyiMaVy 
which,  in   the  common  version,  runs  thus,  For  t/e  have  need  of 
patience,  that,  after  ye  have  done  the  will  of  God,  ye  may  receive 
the  promise.    Here  not  only  is  the  expression  weak  and  obscure, 
but  the  sentiment  is  diflerent.     It  must  be  owned,  however,  that 
this  rendering  of  'vTra/a-ovti  is  not  the  only  thing  exceptionable  in 
the  translation  of  the  sentence.     X^eix,  in  such  phrases,  general- 
ly implies  more  than  is  denoted  by  our  word  need,  or  by  the  La. 
word  opus.     It  expresses  not  only  what  is  useful,  but  what  is 
necessary,  what  cannot  be  dispensed  with.     For  this  reason,  1 
prefer  the  expression  of  the  Vul.  Fatientia  enimvohis  necessariu 
est,  to  that  of  Be.  Nam,  patiente  animo  vobis  est  opus.     An- 
other error  is  in  the  rendering  £7r;t7y£A(<«   in  this  place /»ro7«/5C, 
and  not  promised  reward,  agreeably  to  a  very  common   Heb. 
idiom.     The  sense  evidently  is.  For  ye  must  persevere  in  doing 
the  will  of  God,  that  ye  may  obtain  the  promised  reward. 

26.  Gadarenes,  Fx^x^^ivuv.  Vul.  Gerasenorum.  The  only 
vouchers  the  Cam.  MS.  and  Sax.  version.     Mt.  viii.  28.  N. 

27.  A  man  of  the  city,  xvr,o  m  m  tj;?  ^sAfa?.  The  import  of 
■which  is  evidently  here,  '  a  man  belongiug  to  the  city,'  not  '  a 
'  man  coming  from  the  city.'  The  Vul.  says  simply,  vir  quidam, 
but  has  nothing  to  answer  to  ik  t^?  TroXiui;.  la  this  it  is  followed 
by  the  Sax.  only. 

^  Demons,  ^xifMvtx,  Vul.  Deemonium.  As  in  this  diversity 
also,  the  Vul.  has  no  support  from  either  MSS.  or  versions,  it 
is  enough  to  mention  it. 

31.  The  abyss,  mv  xjivro-ov.  E.  T.  The  deep.  The  meaning 
of  this  word  in  Eng.  is  invariably  the  sea.     In  this  sense  it  oc- 


324  NOTES  ON 


en.  VI  li. 


curs  often  in  Scripture.  We  find  it  in  this  Gospel,  ch.  v.  4. 
"where  the  Gr.  word  rendered  the  deep  is  ro  ficcBoi.  That  the  sea 
is  not  meant  here,  is  evident ;  for  to  the  sea  the  demons  went  of 
themselves,  when  permitted,  at  their  own  request,  to  enter  into 
the  swine.  For  the  proper  import  of  the  word  abyss,  in  the 
Jewish  use,  see  Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  14. 

34.  Fled,  and  spread  the  news,  e<pvyo\i  km  xTreXSovni  omyiyyuXou, 
E.  T.  Fled,  and  zoent  and  told.  But  the  word  aiDjA^ovTe;,  an- 
swering to  zcent,  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  MSS.  of  any  ac- 
count, in  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Go.  the  Sax.  Cop.  and  Ara. 
versions,  in  some  of  the  most  eminent  editions,  and  is  generally 
rejected  by  critics. 

36.  In  what  manner  the  demoniac  had  been  delivered,  -xui 
es-udi}  0  ^xifMvta-S-^i;.  Vul.  Quomodo  sanus  factus  esset  alegione. 
This  reading  appears  to  be  equally  unsupported  Avith  the  two 
former. 

41.  A  ruler  of  the  synagogue — to  wit,  of  Capernaum. 

47,  Having  thrown  herself  prostrate,  declared  to  him,  before 
all  the  people,  why  she  had  touched  him,  Tr^oo-Ts-ia-a's-ct,  uvra  Jli'  sj'y 
airtxv    tiipctTo)  uvts,   otTiYiyyiiXiv  ccvrea,   aw^tov  TrccvToi  rn  XxH,      E.  T. 

Falling  down  before  him,  she  declared  unto  him,  before  all  the 
people,  for  what  cause  she  had  touched  him.  As  the  second 
avTM  is  not  found  in  several  MSS.  some  of  them  of  note;  as  there 
is  nothing  which  corresponds  to  it  in  these  ancient  translations, 
the  Vul.  the  Sy.  the  Sax.  and  the  Cop.  and  as  it  seems  rather  su. 
pertluous,  I  have  omitted  it  in  this  version,  taking  the  first  uvtm 
to  be  governed  by  the  verb  xTniyyuXev. 

48.  Take  courage,  9-x^a-ii.  This  word  is  wanting  in  the  Cam. 
and  three  other  MSS.  and  there  is  nothing  corresponding  to  it  in 
the  Vul.  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions. 

51.  Being  come  to  the  house,  hfiXSuv  ^e  ei<;  Ti}\i  oimcu.  E.  T. 
And  when  he  came  into  0e  house.  But  the  greater  number  of 
MSS.  especially  those  of  principal  note,  read  eXGuf  simply.  This 
has  also  been  read  by  the  authors  of  the  Vul.  of  both  the  Sy.  the 
Ara.  the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  versions.  It  is  in  some  of  the  best 
editions,  and  is  approved  by  Mill  and  Wet.  The  other  reading 
seems  not  quite  consistent  with  the  following  part  of  the  ver.se 


,cu.  IX.  S.  LUKE.  325 

2  Peler^  ami  John,,  and  James.  E.  T.  Peter.,  and  James., 
and  John.  The  copies,  evangelistaries,  La.  MSS.  editions,  and 
versions,  wliicli,  in  exhibiting  these  names,  follow  tlie  first  order, 
both  out-number  and  out-weigh  those  which  follow  the  second. 
I  acknowledge  that  it  is  a  matter  of  very  little  consequence 
which  of  the  two  has  been  the  original  order  ;  but  as  the  arrange- 
ment here  adopted  is  peculiar  to  this  Evangelist  (for  it  occurs 
again,  ch.  ix.  28.;  whereas  both  Mt.  and  Mr.  say  always  James 
and  John),  I  thought  it  safer,  where  possible,  to  preserve  the 
peculiarities  of  each,  even  in  the  smallest  matters. 

54.  Having  made  them  all  retire,  exJ^uXm  t\a  Trxvrxq,  These 
words  are  not  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  The  clause  is 
wanting  also  in  the  Vul.  the  Sax,  and  the  Eth.  versions. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

1.  The  twelve,  r»5  MiKx  f^x&r.ra.'i  uvth.  E.  T.  His  txzelvc 
disciples.  The  words  ^<«<t;;r«5  ^vth  are  wanting  in  a  very  great 
number  of  MSS.  some  of  them  of  chief  note,  and  in  several  of  the 
oldest  editions.  They  are  not  in  the  first  Sy.  nor  in  some 
modern  versions,  as  Lu.'s  and  the  Tigurine.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  even  the  other  ancient  versions,  the  Vul.  the 
second  Sy.  the  Go.  the  Sax.  the  Cop.  have  not  read  i^^ihTx^,  but 
««-aroA«5.  This  reading  is  also  favoured  by  a  few  Gr.  MSS.  of 
little  account.  When  the  evidence  of  these  diflerent  readings  is 
compared  together,  the  superiority  is  manifestly  for  the  rejection 
of  the  two  words.     They  are,  besides,  quite  unnecessary. 

3,  Nor  staves,  f^y;]e  ^ct^^^i.  Vul.  Necjiie  virgam.  In  this 
readin<r  the  Vul.  has  the  sanction  of  a  good  number  of  MSS.  and 
of  the  Sy.  Eth.  and  Ara.  versions.  The  balance,  however,  is 
against  it. 

4.  Continue  in  whatever  house  ye  are  received  into,  until  ye 
leave  the  place,  «5  « v  «v  o«x<«y  HTiXhli^  £*«  M'^nlt,  >^  eKukvi^c^yj'r^e. 
E.  T.  Whatsoever  house  ye  enter  into,  there  abide,  and  thence 
depart.  This  way  of  rendering,  though  it  appears  to  be  literal, 
is  very  unintelligible,  and  conveys  no  determinate  meaning.  It 
seems  even  to  be' self.contradictory.  Vul.  In  quamcunque  do- 
mum  intraveritis,  ibi  manete,  et  inde  nan  exeat  is.  There  can  be 

VOL.  IV,  41 


326  NOTES  ON  ch.  ix, 

no  doubt  that  the  authors  of  this  version  have  read  ft-n  before 
t^spx^'^S-t ;  which  is,  indeed,  found  in  one  MS.  but  has  no  other 
authority  that  I  know.  The  authors  of  the  Sax.  and  the  Cop. 
versions  seem,  instead  of  the  clause,  )^  ex,H6e*  (%e^x.^o-^^t  to  have 
read  iu<;  en  ilexenru  We  may,  indeed,  say  with  truth  that, 
whether  they  read  so  or  not,  it  was  impossible,  in  a  consistency 
with  the  scope  and  connection,  to  render  the  sentence  otherwise 
than  they  have  done.  The  parallel  places  in  like  manner  confirm 
the  opinion  that  this  must  be  the  sense  of  the  expression. 

23.  Daily^  y.xf  jj>f;)6«».  These  words  are  wanting  in  so  many 
and  so  considerable  MSS.  and  are  found  in  so  many  others,  as 
might  make  one  justly  hesitate  whether  to  retain  or  to  reject 
them.  All  the  ancient  versions,  however,  except  the  second  Sy. 
favour  their  admission  ;  and  even  that  version  does  not  exclude 
them;  it  receives  them  only  with  a  mark  as  dubious.  There  is 
nothing,  indeed,  corresponding  to  them  in  the  two  parallel  pas- 
sages of  the  other  Gospels ;  but  that  is  no  objection,  as  there  is 
nothing  in  either,  which,  in  the  smallest  degree,  contradicts 
them ;  and  it  is  common,  in  the  different  Evangelists,  to  supply 
circumstances  overlooked  by  the  others.  Besides,  there  is  no- 
thing in  them  unsuitable  to  the  sense.  As  to  follow  Christ  is 
the  constant  or  daily  business  of  his  disciple,  every  attendant 
circumstance  must  share  in  that  constancy.  Upon  the  whole, 
the  word  daily  possesses  a  place  in  the  E,  T.  and  we  can  say,  at 
least,  that  there  does  not  appear  ground  sufficient  for  dispossess- 
ing it.     Diss.  XII.  P.  II.  §  15. 

28.  Eyfvrre  h—)^  vxpoiXet^m —  This  is  a  mode  of  construction 
not  unusual  with  this  Evangelist.  The  t^  is  redundant,  as  in  ch. 
viii.  1.  X.  38.  and  xxiii.  44.  or  it  may  be  rendered  into  Eng.  by 
the  conjunction  that.  It  happened  that:  uo-h  vn-tpctt  oktm  may, 
doubtless,  as  Eisner  proposes,  be  included  in  a  parenthesis. 

31.  The  departure,  tjjv  £|a<5av.  E.  T.  The  decease.  Though 
some  have  put  a  different  meaning  upon  the  words,  it  was,  doubt- 
less, our  Lord's  death  which  was  the  subject  of  their  discourse. 
It  must,  at  the  same  time,  be  acknowledged,  that  the  word  e^o^<^ 
does  not  necessarily  imply  this,  it  being  the  term  by  which  the 
departure  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt  was  commonly  expressed, 
and  the  name  given  by  the  Seventy  to  the  second  book  of  Moses, 


ou.  IX.  S.  LUKE.  327 

As  it  may  not  have  been  without  design,  that  the  common  names 
for  death,  .9-«v«t<^  and  nXevrfi,  were  avoided  by  the  Evangelist,  I 
thought  it  better  to  use  here  the  word  departure,  which  is  of 
equal  latitude  with  that  of  the  original. 

34.    And  the  disciples  feared,  when  those  men  entered  the 

cloud,  £(Poli7i3-iirx^  h  £V  Tu  £x -«v»?  «r£A9-av  e<?  rjji-  V£<peX/iv.      E.  T.  And 

they  feared,  as  they  entered  into  the  cloud.  This  expression 
evidently  implies  that  they  were  the  same  persons  who  feared, 
and  who  entered  into  the  cloud.  The  Gr.  not  less  evidently,  by 
means  of  the  pronoun  £>tE<v«5,  implies  that  they  were  different 
persons.  I  know  not  how  I  had  overlooked  this  circumstance, 
till  it  was  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Syraonds.     Diss.  XI£.  P.  I.  §  31. 

45.  It  teas  veiled  to  them,  that  they  might  not  apprehend  it^ 

i)V  'Xct^tty.tx.*Mi(^fA.'.vov  utt  uvtuv,  'tvx  (mj  uiirS-avreii  uvro.  E.  T.  It 
Tcas  hid  from  them,  that  thet/  perceived  it  not.  The  words  are 
susceptible  of  either  interpretation  ;  for  though  the  common  sig- 
nification of /v«  is  to  the  end  that,  yet,  in  the  N.  T.  it  frequently 
denotes  no  more  than  so  that.  H?re,  however,  the  former  clause 
appears  to  me  so  strongly  expressed,  as  to  justify  the  transla. 
tion  I  have  given  of  both.  If  the  historian  had  employed  an  ad- 
jective, as  ti(r»<P)ji,  or  x^wT^,  and  not  the  passive  participle 
of  an  active  verb,  w«^«)tf»t«At/jM,/tc£vov,  the  conjunction  might,  with 
greater  probability,  have  been  interpreted  so  that.  But,  as  it 
stands,  it  seems  to  express  something  intentional.  Nor  let  it  be 
imagined  that  this  criticism  is  a  mere  refinement.  Who  would 
not  be  sensible  of  the  difference,  in  Eng.  between  saying  that  an 
expression  is  dark,  and  saying  that  it  has  been  darkened,  or 
made  dark  ?  Now  this  is  very  similar  to  the  case  in  hand.  Allow 
me  to  add,  that  there  is  no  impropriety  in  supposing  that  pre. 
dictions  were  intentionally  expressed  so  as  not  to  be  perfectly 
understood  at  the  time ;  but  so  as  to  make  an  impression,  which 
would  secure  their  being  remembered  till  the  accomplishment 
should  dispel  every  doubt.     Diss.  XII.  P.  II.  §  11  and  12. 

48.  He  who  is  least  among  you  all,  shall  be  greatest,  i  f*.u 
«^eTef  ^  £»  ^xTiv  uf^ii  vTTx^^uv,  «r^  £r«<  f*.iycti;.  Vul.  Qui  minor 
est  inter  vos  omnes,  hie  major  est.  E.  T.  He  that  is  least  among 
you  all,  the  same  shall  be  great.  By  a  very  common  Hebraism, 
the  positive  supplies  the  place,  sometimes  of  the  comparative, 
,  sometimes  of  the  superlative.    Thus^  Gen.  i.  Ifi.     God  made  f zoo 


328  NOTES  ON  ch.  ix- 

great  lights,  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light 
to  rule  the  night.  So  the  words  are  rendered  in  the  Eng.  Bible. 
In  Heb.  it  is  the  great  light,  and  the  little  light.  In  the  version 
of  the  Seventy,  the  former  clause  is  expressed  thus,  tov  <pur^p» 
Tflv  fJL.iyu.y  «s  a.iix.»<i  "^n  w-ip»i-  Again,  Mt.  xxii.  36.  Which  is  the 
greatest  commandment  in  the  law  ?  ttoix  ivroXri  [^eycc>i»i  «v  ra  vojtt»  ; 
And,  in  regard  to  the  passage  now  under  examination,  as  the  con- 
tention among  the  disciples  was,  which  of  them  should  be  the 
greatest  (for,  doubtless,  they  expected  that  they  should  all  be 
great),  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  about  the  import  of 
the  term. 

50.  Whoever  is  not  against  us,  is  for  us,  «'?  ay.  eri  kucO'  ^/umv, 
vTrep  ^u.m  triv.  A  considerable  number  of  MSS.  and  some  of 
principal  note,  read  C^cm  in  both  places.  It  is  in  this  way  ren- 
dered by  the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  Eth.  and  Ara.  versions. 
But,  though  this  should  be  thought  to  render  the  true  reading 
doubtful,  one  thing  is  clear,  that  the  difference  does  not  affect 
the  sense. 

51.  As  the  time  of  his  removal  approached,  eyevero  Se  a  ru 
frv/ATrP^ij^iia-B-cii  t«;  ii/A.epoi<;  ts;5  xoaXviil^tu^  xvra.  E.  T.  And  it  came 
to  pass,  zchen  the  time  zvas  come  that  he  should  be  received  up. 
AvaAjj^'s  does  not  occur  in  any  other  place  of  the  N.  T. ;  nor  is 
it  found  in  the  Sep. ;  but  being  derived  from  uvu>iUn.Sciva,  which  is 
used  pretty  often  in  both,  we  can  hardly  be  at  a  loss  about  the 
signification.  The  verb  admits  a  good  deal  of  latitude;  for 
though  it  is  sometimes,  in  the  passive  voice,  applied  to  our  Sa- 
viour's assumption  into  heaven,  and  signifies  to  be  taken  up  ;  it 
is  not  confined,  in  the  N.  T.  to  that  meaning,  and  has  but  rarely 
such  an  acceptation  in  the  Gr.  of  the  Seventy.  The  old  La. 
translator,  who  renders  anaAjji^'?,  here,  assumptio,  has  probably 
meant  this;  and  to  this  effect  our  Eng.  translators  have,  still 
more  explicitly,  rendered  t«5  »)Vff«?  '■'??  <*v«A>i%//£»5  eivra,  the  time 
that  he  should  be  received  up.  Yet,  to  me,  it  appears  very  im- 
probable that  the  Evangelist  should  speak  of  the  time  of  his  as- 
cension  as  being  come,  or  just  at  hand,  not  only  before  his  re- 
surrection, but  even  before  his  trial  and  death  ;  especially,  con- 
sidering that  he  continued  no  fewer  than  forty  days  on  the  earth 
after  he  was  risen.  The  word  xvcM-<l/ti  is  equally  applicable  to 
any  other  method  of  removing.     Accordingly,  some  Fr.  trans- 


en.  X. 


S.  LUKE.  339 


lators,  even  from  the  Vul.  have  understood  the  dies  assumptionis 
ejus  of  his  death.  Both  in  the  P.  R.  version,  and  in  Sa.'s,  it  is 
rendered,  Le  terns  auquel  il  devoit  etre  enleve  du  monde.  From 

these  Si.  dii.ers,  only  in  saying, de  cc  monde.     But  though 

this  probably  expresses  the  meaning,  yet,  as  it  is  more  explicit 
than  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  I  have  preferred  a  simpler  man- 
ner, and  used  a  term  of  nearly  the  same  extent  of  signification 
■with  the  Gr.  The  word  o-vf^'prXij^ao-^oit,  in  strictness,  denotes  that 
the  time  v:as  come.  But  we  all  know  that,  in  popular  language, 
a  time  is  often  said  to  be  come  which  is  very  near.  Besides, 
whatever  be  the  removal  alluded  to,  the  circumstances  closely 
connected  with  it,  or  introductory  to  it,  may  well  be  understood 
as  comprehended.  This  seems  strongly  indicated  here,  by  the 
indefinite  turn  of  the  expression,  t«5  >!'ft£f«5,  the  dajjs,  rr,i;  caax-zt- 
■^lu^  xvth;  whereas  the  actual  removal,  whether  by  death,  or  by 
ascension,  occupied  but  a  small  part  of  one  day. 

52.  A  village.,  xmuhv.  Vul.  Civitatcm.  A  few  inconsiderable 
MSS.  with  The.  read  t^-oXiv. 

54.  As  Elijah  did,  a?  ^  HXixi  iTroiticrz.  This  clause  is  wanting 
in  two  MSS.  and  in  the  Vul,  and  Sax.  versions. 

62.  No  man  who  having  put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  looketh 
behind  him  ;  is  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  first  member 
of  this  sentence  is  no  more  than  a  proverbial  expression  for  a 
certain  character,  one,  to  wit,  who,  whilst  he  is  engaged  in  a 
work  of  importance,  allows  his  attention  to  be  distracted  by 
things  foreign.  The  import  is  that  those  of  this  description  were 
unfit  for  that  spiritual  service  in  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
were  to  be  employed.  There  is  an  implicit  comparison  couched 
in  the  words,  but  not  formally  proposed,  as  in  the  parables. 


CHAPTER  X. 

1.  Seventy  others,  cle^m  tQSefv^Kovlu.  E.  T.  Other  Seventy*, 
But  this  expression  implies  that  there  were  seventy  sent  before. 
Now,  this  is  not  the  fact  (those  sent  before  being  no  more  than 
twelve),  nor  is  it  implied  in  the  Gj.  So  inconsiderable  a  diflfer- 
pnce  in  (he  words  makes  a  great  alteration  in  the  sense. 


330  NOTES  ON  ch.  x- 

^  Seventy^  iQe/^tiKovrx.  Vul.  Septuaginia  duos.  Thus  also 
the  Sax.  The  Vat.  the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  read  o/3,  which 
is  the  numeral  mark  for  72. 

4.  Salute  no  person  by  the  way  ; — Let  not  matters  of  mere 
compliment  detain  you. 

6.  If  a  son  of  peace  he  there,  e»v  f^cv  jj  cKet  o  bi!^  «?);v>;?.  E. 
T.  If  the  son  of  peace  be  there.  The  article  before  'vi(^  is  want- 
ing in  many  MSS  some  of  them  of  great  name,  in  all  the  best 
editions,  and  in  the  comments  of  several  Fathers.  As  to  ancient 
versions,  this  is  one  of  those  particulars,  about  which  we  cannot 
safely  determine,  whether  they  read  the  one  way  or  the  other. 
Neither  the  Sy.  nor  the  La.  has  articles  ;  and  those  languages 
which  have  them  do  not  perfectly  coincide  with  one  another  in 
the  use  of  them.  In  the  present  case,  the  scope  of  the  passage 
clearly  shows  that  the  word  is  used  indefinitely.  Son  of  peaces 
here,  is  equivalent  to  worthy  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Mt. 
The  import,  therefore,  is,  manifestly,  '  If  a  person  of  worth,  or 
*  deserving  your  good  wishes,  be  there.' 

17.  The  Seventy.  The  Cam.  MS.  the  Vul.  and  the  Sax.  make 
them  seventy. tx£o,  as  in  v.  1. 

20.  Rejoice.,  xM^cfe.  The  word  ftaAAev,  rather,  which  is  in 
the  common  edition,  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  MSS.  editions, 
versions,  Sfc.  of  any  consideration,  and  is,  therefore,  justly  re. 
jected  by  critics. 

21.  In  spirit,  tu  Tvevf^.xri.  The  Cam.  and  five  others,  prefix 
«yi«.  The  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  and  Sax. 
read  so. 

23.  Apart,  xair'  t^i;tv.  This  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  is  not 
rendered  in  the  Vul.  nor  in  the  Sax.  There  is  no  other  autho. 
rity,  that  I  know,  for  the  omission. 

30.  A  man  of  Jerusalem  travelling  to  Jericho,  a,vB-^a)7r(^  ng 
x.stTeSxiv£¥  ctTo  ' h^air-uXvii^  «?  l£f<%«.  E.  T.  A  certain  man  went 
down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  this 
is  a  close  translation  of  the  words  as  they  lie ;  and  that,  in  the 
version  here  adopted,  there  is  greater  freedom  taken  with  the 
arrangement.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  not  greater  than  the 
scope  of  the  place,  and  the  practice  of  the  sacred  writers,  will 
■^Tarrant.     As  to  the  scope  of  the  passage,  every  body  perceives 


«H.  X. 


9.  LUKE.  331 


that  it  is  the  intention  of  this  parable  to  confound  those  malig. 
nant  Jewish  prejudices,  which  made  them  confine  their  charity 
to  those  of  their  ow  n  nation  and  religion.  Nor  could  any  thing 
be  better  adapted  for  the  purpose  than  this  story,  which,  as  it  is 
universally  understood,  exhibits  a  Samaritan  overlooking  all  na- 
tional and  religious  difierences,  and  doing  offices  of  kindness  and 
humanity  to  a  Jew  in  distress.  By  this  means,  the  narrow- 
minded  Pharisee,  who  put  the  question,  is  surprised  into  a  con- 
viction, that  there  is  something  amiable,  and  even  divine,  in  sur- 
mounting all  partial  considerations,  and  listening  to  the  voice  of 
nature,  which  is  the  voice  of  God,  in  giving  relief  to  the  unhap- 
py. Now,  the  whole  energy  of  the  story  depends  on  this  cir- 
cumstance, that  the  person  who  received  the  charitable  aid,  was 
a  Jew,  and  the  person  who  gave  it  a  Samaritan.  Yet,  if  we  do 
not  transpose  the  xaT£f«/v£v,  in  this  verse,  and  make  it  follow, 
instead  of  preceding,  xtto  'h^ao-aA^jft.,  we  shall  be  apt  to  lose  sight 
of  the  principal  view.  The  use  of  «5ra,  for  denoting  the  place 
to  which  a  person  belonged,  is  common  :  AvS^uti^  cctto  A^if^ot6^cci, 
Mt.  xxvii.  57.  A«^(«f(^  xtto  '&^6mix<i,  J.  xi.  1.  As  to  the  trans- 
position, instances  much  greater  than  the  present,  have  been 
taken  notice  of  already  ;  and  other  instances  will  occur  in  these 
notes.     Mt.  xv.  1.  N.     See  Bowyer's  conjectures. 

32.  Likewise  a  Levite  on  the  road,  when  he  came  near  the 
place,  and  saw  him,  passed  by  on  the  farther  side,  ofMiui  ^e  t^  Xivt- 

'^'Kij  yfv«ittEV®^  Kxra  t«v  tottov,  iX9a»i,  x.xi  t^&iv,  uvTt7rxpi^X6ev,  E.  T  And 
likewise  a  Levite,  when  he  was  at  the  place,  came  and  looked  on 
him,  and  passed  by  on  the  other  side.  There  are  some  strange 
inaccuracies  in  this  version.  It  may  be  asked,  Whither  did  the 
Levite  come,  Avhen  he  was  already  at  the  place?  Or,  how  does  his 
coming  and  looking  on  the  wounded  man,  consist  wilh  his  pass- 
ing by  on  the  other  side?  Indeed,  the  word  eXdm,  in  the  original, 
appears  redundant,  and  is  wanting  in  a  few  MSS.  as  well  as  in 
the  Vul.  The  word  i^m,  is  badly  rendered  looked  on.  A  man 
is  often  passive,  in  seeing  what  he  does  not  choose  to  see,  if  he 
could  avoid  it.  But  to  look  on  implies  activity  and  attention.  I 
have,  in  this  version,  expressed  the  sense,  without  attaching  my- 
self servilely  to  the  words.  In  rendering  mTtxx^y>x6ev,  I  have  pre. 
ferred  Be.'s  ex  adverso  prceteriit,  to  the  pertransivit  o{  the  Vul. 
It  appears  to  me,  that  it  is  not  without  design  that  this  unusual 


33,2  NOTES  ON  en.  xt. 

compound,  ctvTiTrx^e^x^'^^^h  applied  to  the  priest  and  the  Levite, 
is  here  contrasted  to  the  zr^o<!-s^;):^i'!-9-xi^  applied  to  the  Samaritan. 
This  is  the  more  probable,  as  it  is  solely  in  this  place  that  the 
former  verb  occurs  in  Scripture  ;  whereas  ■^m^e^x.^T.^'^t  occurs 
frequently  in  the  sacred  writers,  and  in  none  oftener  than  in  this 
Evangelist,  as  signifying  to  pass  on,  to  pass  by,  or  pass  away. 
Add  to  all,  that  this  meaning  of  the  preposition  uvrt,  in  compound 
verbs,  is  common,  and  the  interpretation  analogical.  Besides, 
the  circumstance  suggested  is  not  only  suitable  to  the  whole  spi- 
rit of  the  parable,  but  natural  and  picturesque. 

34.  Tlctv^ox^cv.  ch.  ii.  7.     ^  N. 

35.  When  he  was  going  away^  e%eX6m.  This  word  is  want- 
ing in  the  Cam.  and  three  other  MSS.  and  is  not  rendered  in  the 
Vul.  Sy.  Eth.  Sax.  and  Ara.  versions. 

42.  The  good  part.  I  had,  in  the  former  edition,  after  the 
E.  T.  said  that  good  part.  It  has  been  remarked  to  me,  by  a 
friend,  that  the  pronoun  seems  to  make  the  expression  refer  to 
the  one  thing  necessary.  I  am  sensible  of  the  justness  of  the 
remark,  and  therefore,  now,  literally  follow  the  Gr.  r};v  «y<«.9^jjy 


CHAPTER  XL 

2.  4.  The  words,  in  these  verses,  inclosed  in  crotchets,  have 
nothing  in  the  Vul.  corresponding  to  them,  nor  in  the  Arm.  ver- 
sion. They  afe  wanting  also  in  several  MSS.  Some  of  the  Fa- 
thers have  given  what  I  may  call,  a  negative  testimony  against 
their  admission,  by  omitting  them  in  those  places  of  their  works 
where  we  should  have  expected  to  find  them  ;  but  Origen's  tes- 
timony against  them  is  more  positive :  for  he  says,  expressly,  of 
some  of  those  clauses  and  petitions,  that  they  are  in  Mt.  but  not  in 
L.  It  deserves  to  be  remarked,  also,  that  he  does  not  say  (though 
in  these  matters  he  is  wont  to  be  accurate)  that  those  expressions 
are  not  found  in  many  copies  of  L.'s  Gospel,  but  simply,  that 
L.  has  them  not.  This  would  lead  one  to  think,  that  he  had  not 
found  them  in  any  transcript  of  that  Gospel  which  had  come  un- 
der his  notice,  though  far  the  most  eminent  scriptural  critic  of 
his  time ;  and  that  they  were,  consequently,  an  interpolation  of 


CH.  XI.  S.   LUKE.  333 

a  later  date.  Whatever  be  in  this,  some  of  our  best  modern 
critics,  Gro.  Ben.  Mill,  and  Wet.  seem  to  be  agreed  that,  in  this 
place,  we  are  indebted  for  them  to  some  bold  transcribers,  who 
have  considered  it  as  a  necessary  correction,  to  supply  what  they 
thought  deficient  in  one  Gospel  out  of  another.  See  the  notes 
on  Mt.  vi.  10,  Sfc. 

3.  /Each  day,  to  kx^  ■^f/.i^ctv.  Instead  of  this,  the  Cam.  and 
six  other  MSS.  read  o-ijicipov.  Thus,  the  author  of  the  Vul.  has 
read,  who  says  hodie.  This  is  also  followed  by  the  Sax.  version. 
Yet,  in  no  other  part  of  this  prayer  does  that  version  follow  the 
Vul.  but  the  Gr. 

6.  Off  his  road,  i%  oS'a.  E.  T.  In  his  journey.  The  transla- 
tion, here  given,  is  evidently  closer  ;  besides,  it  strengthens  the 
argument. 

7.  /  and  my  children  are  in  bed,  tx  -rxiSix  (4.n,  im-et'  «/«,«,  «5 
7iiv  KoiTiiv  eio-iv.  E.  T.  My  children  are  zdth  me  in  bed.  That 
j!t£T'  eiA.H  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  and  his  children  were 
in  the  same  bed,  but  only  that  the  children  were  gone  to  bed  as 
well  as  he,  has  been  shown  by  many  critics.  I  shall,  therefore, 
only  refer  the  Gr.  student  to  the  following,  amongst  other,  pas- 
sages which  might  be  quoted,  wherein,  if  he  look  into  the  ori- 
ginal, he  will  find  that  the  prepositions,  n.erct.  and  e-s/v,  often  de. 
note  no  more  than  the  former  of  these,  in  the  interpretation  above 
given,  denotes  here,  Mt.  ii.  3.  1  Cor.  xvi.  11.  Eph.  iii.  18. 

8.  If  the  other  continue  knocking.  Vul.  Si  ille  perseverave. 
rit  pulsans.  Words  corresponding  to  these  are  not  found  either 
in  the  Gr.  or  in  the  Sy.  Nor  can  we  plead  the  authority  of  MSS. 
The  best  argument  in  their  favour  is,  that  they  seem  necessary  to 
the  sense  ;  for  a  man  could  not  be  said  to  be  importunate,  for 
having  asked  a  favour  only  once.  As  the  passage,  therefore, 
needed  the  aid  of  some  words,  and  as  these  are  adapted  to  the 
purpose,  and  have  been  long  in  possession  ;  for  the  old  Itc.  and 
the  Sax.  versions  read  so,  as  well  as  the  Vul.  I  thought  it  better 
to  retain  them,  adding  the  mark  by  which  I  distinguish  words 
inserted  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity,  from  those  of  the  inspired 
penmen. 

13.  How  much  more  will  your  Father  give  from  heaven,  tto, 
Tu  f/,xXXov  0  zrxTnf)  0  e|  apx^a  ^utret.     E.  T.  How  much  more  shall 

VOL.    IT.  42 


334  -  NQTES  0?i  ch.  xi- 

your  heavenly  Father  give.     Vul.  Quanfo  magis  Pater  vester  _ 
de  coelo  dabit.     Thus  we  read  in  the  edition  authorised  by  Pope 
Sixtus  Q'lintus  ;  whereas,  after  Pope  Clement's  corrections,  it 
is  pater  coelestis  ;  but  in  three  old  editions,  one  published  at 
Venice  in  1484,  another  at  Paris  in  1504,  the  third  at  Lyons  in 
1512,  we  have  both  readings  conjoined,  Pater  vester  coelestis  de 
coelo  dabit.,  with  a  note  on  the  margin  of  the  last,  insinuating 
that  some  copies  have  not  the  word  coelestis.     The  Sy.  reads  ex- 
actly as  the  Vul.  of  Sixtus  Quintus.     So  do  also  the  Cop.  and 
the  Sux.  Some  Gr.  MSS.  likewise  omit  the  o,  and  read  Jft^v  after 
iT«T)jf .     This  makes  the  most  natural  expression,  and  appears  to 
have  been  the  reading  of  the  most  ancient  translators.   Gro.  and 
some  other  critics,  have  thought  that  vxryip  o  f|  «^«vs,  is  equiva- 
lent to  Trxrtjp  0  ev  tw  apxva,  Or  £v  t«/5  apxvoK;.  I  can  find  no  evidence 
of  this  opinion.  Such  a  periphrasis  for  God,  in  this  or  any  other 
sacred  writer,  is  without  example;  and  the  expressions  which 
have  been  produced,  as  similar,  are  not  apposite.     I  see  no  rea- 
son for  imputing  so  strange  an  affectation  to  the  Evangelist.     I 
have,  therefore,   followed  the  Sy.  which  differs  in  nothing  from 
the  common  Gr.  except  in  reading  uf.uov  after  Trxrijp,  instead  of  o. 
^  The  holy  Spirit,  zruvf^a  uyio.    Vul.  Spiritum  bonum.    The 
Cam.  «y«5iv  ^»ft«e,  three  others,  -Trvivf^a  uyetSov^  agreeably  to  the 
Vul.  Eth.  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions. 

17.  0}ie  family  falling  after  another,  y.xt  ernoi  e-rt  oikhv  ttu 
TTTii.  E.  T.  And  a  house  divided  against  a  house  falleth.  Vul. 
Et  domus  supra  domiim  cadit.  Er.  and  Cas.  to  the  same  pur- 
pose. Our  translators  have,  by  following  Be.  imperfectly,  been 
drawn  into  the  hardly  intelligible  version  they  have  given  of  this 
passage.  Be.  says,  Et  domus  adversus  sese  dissidens  cadit.  This 
translation  is  founded  on  the  parallel  passages  in  Mt.  and  Mr. ; 
for  nobody  could  have  so  translated  the  words  of  L.  who  had  not 
recurred  to  the  other  historians.  Now,  though  this  method  is  oftea 
convenient,  and  sometimes  necessary,  it  should  not  be  used  when 
the  words,  as  they  lie,  are  not  obscure,  but  yield  a  meaning 
which  is  both  just  and  apposite.  Besides,  the  construction  ob- 
served throughout  the  whole  passage,  and  even  in  the  parallel 
places,  renders  it  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  if  the  Evangelist's 
meaning  had  been  the  same  with  Be.'s,  he  would  have  said,  «<x«5 
!<p  UvTov,  which;  though  elliptical,  might  possibly,  by  one  who 


CH.  xr.  S.  LUKE.  335 

had  read  no  other  Gospel,  have  been  apprehended  to  convey  that 
sense.  In  the  way  it  is  expressed,  it  could  never  have  been  so 
understood  by  any  body. 

21.  The  strong  one,  o  ta-^vpei;.  E.  T.  A  strong  man.  With 
most  interpreters,  I  had  considered  this  verse  as  including  a  com- 
parison to  what  usually  befals  housebreakers.  But,  on  further 
reflection,  observing  that  the  lo-^vpti  is  accompanied  with  the  ar- 
ticle, both  here,  and  in  the  parallel  passages  in  Mt.  and  Mr.  and 
that,  as  to  this,  there  is  no  diversity  of  reading  in  any  of  the 
Gospels,  I  could  not  help  concluding  that  o  <c-%v^®^,  like  o  wa. 
rjj^(^,  0  ccvTi^Di®-',  0  oictfioX^,  is  intended  to  indicate  one  indivi- 
dual being.  The  connection  leads  us  to  apply  it  to  Beelzebub, 
styled  in  this  passage  the  prince  of  the  demons.  Now,  in  m«re 
similitudes,  the  thing  to  which  the  subject  is  compared,  has  no 
article.  Thus  Mt.  xiii.  45. — like  a  merchantman,  &c.  52 — 
like  a  householder,  &c.  xxii.  2. — like  a  king,  &c.  They  are 
expressed  indefinitely  in  Gr.  as  in  Eng.  Of  our  late  Eng.  in. 
terpreters  who  render  d  la-^vpoi  properly,  are  Hey.  Wes.  and  Wy, 
So  also  does  Wa.  in  the  parallel  place  in  Mt. 

22.  He  who  is  stronger,!)  io-x,v^or<;^'^  oivTu.  Y..  T.  A  stronger 
than  he.  As  the  comparative  here,  likewise,  has  the  article, 
nothing  in  the  expression  implies  that  there  is  more  than  one 
stronger  ;  whereas  the  indefinite  Eng.  article'seems  rather  to  im- 
ply it.  Yet  of  the  three  who  had  done  justice  to  the  emphasis 
in  the  former  verse,  Wes.  is  the  only  interpreter  who  has  done 
it  also  in  this. 

29.  He  said,  tip^ctro  Aeyf^v.     Mr.  v.  17.  N. 

36.  By  its  flame,  nj  u^^ctTrn.  Such  is  the  import  of  the  Gr. 
■word  in  this  place.  It  is  oftenest  applied  to  lightning,  but  not 
limited  to  that  meaning. 

38.  But  the  Pharisee  was  surprised  to  observe  that  he  used 
no  washing  before  dinner,  o  ^e  ^xpia-ccioi  i^m  edxvf^ccc-ev,  on  a  -zs-pu. 
Tail  £?ct7ma:%-7rpo  Ts  ct^ira.  Vul.  PhariscEus  autem  cwpit  intra 
se  rpputans  dicere,  quare  non  baptizatus  esset  ante  prandium. 
Agreeably  to  this  version,  the  Cam.  instead  of  i^m  c6xvf,tMTev,  on, 
says,  np^xTo  hxK§iv6f^£vo<;  ev  tscvTu  Xc/fiv  itort.  But  in  this  it  ap- 
pears to  be  single. 


336  NOTES  ON  ch.  xt. 

39.  Malevolence^  Tfovrsfiice^.  Y\i\.  Iniquitate.  The  Sax.  to  the 
same  purpose.  Tertullian  ad?.  Marcion.  h'.  27,  says  Iniquitate^ 
probably  from  the  old  Itc.  This  seems  to  suggest  that  the  inter, 
preter  had  read  ctvof^ica.  But  I  have  not  heard  of  any  example 
of  this  reading  in  the  Gr.  MSS. 

41.  Onlj/  give  in  alms  xchat  ye  have^  5rA»?»  ra  evo^rx  $ire  tXiVjiM- 
^■siMjy.  E.  T.  But  rather  give  alms  of  such  things  as  ye  have. 
T»  sviVTotj  qiice  penes  aliquem  sunt^  what  a  man  is  possessed  of : 
^ore  Tct  (vovTct,  and  ^ors  ex.  tmv  «v8vt«v,  are  not  synonymous.  The 
latter  expressly  commands  to  give  a  part ;  the  former  does 
not  expressly  command  to  give  the  whole,  but  does  not  ex- 
clude that  sense.  The  words,  in  the  E.  T.  are  an  unexceptionable 
version  of  the  latter.  Tx  vTra^x"^''''^  (ch.  xii.  33.)  has  nearly  the 
Same  meaning  with  r»  evovrx  here.  Our  Lord,  in  discoursing  on 
this  topic,  took  a  two-fold  view  of  the  subject,  both  tending  to 
the  same  end.  The  first  and  subordinate  view  was,  that  the 
cleanness  of  the  inside  of  vessels  is  of  as  much  consequence,  at 
least,  as  that  of  the  outside  ;  the  second  and  principal  view  was, 
that  moral  cleanness,  or  purity  of  mind,  is  much  more  important 
than  ceremonial  cleanness,  resulting  from  frequent  washings. 
These  views  are  sometimes  blended  in  the  discourse.  Under  the 
metaphor  of  vessels,  human  beings  are  represented,  whereof  the 
body  answers  to  that  which  is  without,  the  soul  to  that  which  is 
within.  Body  and  soul,  argues  our  Lord,  had  both  the  same 
author,  and  the  one,  especially  the  more  ignoble  part,  ought  not 
to  engross  our  regards,  to  the  neglect  of  the  more  noble  :  and 
even  as  to  the  vessels,  the  genuine  way  of  cleansing  them,  in  a 
moral  and  spiritual  sense,  is  by  making  them  the  instruments  of 
conveying  relief  to  the  distressed  and  needy. 

44.  Scribes  and  Pharisees^  hypocrites,  ypxi^(*.xTiiii  y.xi  <px^i- 
o-Aict,  vTroKpiTxi.  We  have  no  translation  of  these  words  in  the 
Vul.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions.  They  are  wanting  also  in  four 
MSS.  The  Cam,  has  them;  as  also  the  Sax.  version  ;  whence  I 
think  it  probable  that  they  were  in  the  Itc.  version. 

47,  &c.  JVoe  unto  you,  because  ye  build We  are  not  to 

understand  this,  as  though  any  part  of  the  guilt  lay  in  building 
or  adorning  the  tombs  of  the  Prophets,  considered  in  itself:  but 
in  their  falseness,  in  giving  this  testimony  of  respect  to  the  Pro- 
phets, whilst  they  were  actuated  by  the  spirit,  and  following  the 


CH.  XII. 


S.  LUKE.  337 


example  of  their  persecutors  and  murderers  ;  insomuch  that  they 
appeared  to  erect  those  sepulchres,  not  to  do  honour  to  God's 
Prophets,  but  to  serve  as  eternal  monuments  of  the  success  of  their 
progenitors  in  destroying  them. 

54.  Laying  snares  for  him,  in  order  to  draxc-^ m^^svavrei 

avToi  vMi  ^iimvTes  B->ipev<ra.i.   E.  T.  Laying  wait  for  him,  and  seek. 

ing  to  catch But  the  copulative  »«*,  which  makes  all  the 

difference  in  meaning  between  these  two  Eng.  versions,  is  want- 
ing in  so  great  a  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  those  of 
principal  note,  in  so  many  editions,  versions,  S^c.  that  it  is  justly 
rejected  by  Mill,  Wet.  and  other  critics. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

5.   Lito  hell,  f<5  ty^v  yievvxv.      £>iss.  VI.  P-  II.  §  1. 

15.  For  in  whatever  affiuence  a  man  he,  his  life  dcpendeth 
not  on  his  possessions,  on  hx.  ev  ru  vtpio-a-ivnv  rivi  yi  ^wj)  uvth  ej-'v 
(X.  Tm  vTroi^y/>>tru^  avTif.  E.  T.  For  a  man's  life  consisteth  not  in 
the  abundance  of  the  things  which  he  possesseth.  Vul.  Quia  non 
in  abundantia  cujusquam  vita  ejus  est  ex  his  quce  possidet.  Mal- 
donat's  observation  on  this  passage  is  well  founded,  "  DifSci- 
"  liora  sunt  verba  quam  sensus."  All  interpreters  are  agreed 
about  the  meaning,  however  much  they  differ  about  the  con- 
struction. The  E.  T.  without  keeping  close  to  the  words,  has 
expressed  the  sense  rather  more  obscurely  than  either  the  Gr.  or 
the  La.  The  two  clauses  in  the  Or.  are  in  that  version,  combin- 
ed into  one ;  and  iTit  (k  seems  to  be  rendered  consisteth  in.  The 
translators  of  P.  R.  appear  to  be  the  first  who  have  expressed 
the  meaning  perspicuously  in  modern  language.  Car  en  quelque 
abondance  qu'un  homme  soit,  sa  vie  ne  depend  fioint  des  Mens 
qu'il  possede.  In  this  they  have  been  followed  by  subsequent 
interpreters. 

25.  Besides,  uhich  of  you  can,  by  his  anxiety,  prolong  his 
life  one  hour  ?  t<5  ^t  £|  ufA-ut  ^tpiiA.'^u't  ^wxrat  TrpoTS-eiyxi  tTrt  rr,^ 
^Xuixv  uvrs  -BrTi^vy  itx.  E.  T.  And  zchich  of  you,  nith  taking 
thought,  can  add  to  his  stature  one  cubit  ?  'ha««««  signifies  both 
stature,  and  age  or  lifetime.     For  examples  of  (he  latter  accep- 


338  NOTES  ON 


CH.  Xll. 


tation,  see  Job,  ix.  21.  23.  Heb.  xi.  11.  In  every  case,  there- 
fore, the  words  ought  to  be  rendered  by  the  one  or  other  of  these 
terms  which  best  suits  the  context.  U-^x-^i  is  properly  a  measure 
of  length,  and  may,  on  that  account,  be  thought  inapplicable  to 
time.  But  let  it  be  observed,  that  few  tropes  are  more  familiar 
than  those  wherein  such  measures  are  applied  to  the  age  or  life 
of  man.  Behold^  says  the  Psalmist,  thou  hast  made  my  days  an 
hand-breadth,  Ps.  xxxix.  5.  lJ'«,  ■srnXxi's-oii;  i68  r«s  sj^^ae?  f^a^ 
The  common  version  says  as  an  hand-brradfh  ;  but  the  word  a* 
is  supplied  by  the  interpreters,  and  has  nothing  corresponding 
to  it  either  in  the  Heb.  or  in  the  Gr.  Ham,  has  quoted  from 
Mimnermus,  an  ancient  poet,  the  phrase  Tryj^v'iov  ctti  ;\i^ovov,  lite- 
rally/or a  cubit  of  time,  that  is,  for  a  very  short  time.  Analo- 
gous to  this  is  the  common  comparison  of  life  to  a  race,  or  to  a 
journey.  This  may  suffice  to  show,  that  there  is  no  violence 
done  to  the  words  of  the  Evangelist,  in  making  them  relate  to  a 
man's  age,  or  term  of  life,  and  not  to  his  stature.  But  whether 
they  actually  relate  to  the  one  or  to  the  other,  is  best  determined 
from  the  context.  It  is  evident,  that  the  warnings  which  our  Lord 
gives  here,  and  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Mt.  against  anxiety, 
particularly  regard  the  two  essential  articles  of  food  and  raiment, 
■which  engross  the  attention  of  the  much  greater  part  of  mankind. 
Food  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  life,  and  raiment  for 
the  protection  of  our  bodies  from  the  injuries  of  the  weather. 
Anxiety  about  food  is,  therefore,  closely  connected  with  anxie- 
ty about  life ;  but,  except  in  children,  or  very  young  persons, 
■who  must  have  been  an  inconsiderable  part  of  Christ's  audience, 
has  no  connection  with  anxiety  about  stature.  Accordingly,  it 
is  the  preservation  of  life,  and  the  protection  of  the  body,  which 
our  Lord  himself  points  to,  as  the  ultimate  aim  of  all  those  per- 
plexing cares.  Is  not  life,  says  he,  a  greater  gift  than  food,  and 
the  body  than  raiment  ?  And  if  so,  will  not  God,  who  gave  the 
greater  gift,  life,  give  also  food,  which,  though  a  smaller  gift,  is 
necessary  for  supporting  the  other  ?  In  like  manner,  will  not  he 
who  gave  the  body,  give  the  raiment  necessary  for  its  defence  ? 
All  this  is  entirely  consequential,  and  our  Lord,  in  these  warn- 
ings, touches  what  occupies  the  daily  reflections  and  labour  of 
more  than  nine-tenths  of  mankind.  But,  in  what  is  said  about 
stature,  if  we  understand  the  word  so,  he  appears  to  start  aside 
from  what  employs  the  time  and  attention  of  the  people  in  every 


en.  XII.  S.  LUKE.  339 

age  and  country,  to  what  could  be  an  object  only  to  children, 
and  a  very  few  foolish  young  persons.     Besides,  the  increase  of 
the  body,  by  such  an  addition  to  the  stature,  so  far  from  dinfi- 
nishing  men's  anxiety,  would  augment  it,  by  increasing  their 
need  both  of  food  and  of  raiment.     In  the  verse  immediat?!y  fol- 
lowing, we  have  an  additional  evidence  that  the  word  is  employ- 
ed here  metaphorically,  and  that  the  discourse  s^ill  concerns  the 
same  subject,  food  and   raiment,  or  the  preservation  of  life,  and 
the  accommodation  of  the  body.     //  ^e  cannot.,  says  he,  fhus 
effect,  even  the  smallest  thing,  iXxx,"ray,   zohp  are  ye   anxious 
about  the  rest  ?  In  respect  of  stature,  would  a  cubit  be  called 
the  smallest  thing,  which  is  more  than  one  fourth  of  the  whole  ? 
This  would  have  been  more  suitable,  if  the  word  had  been  an 
inch.     In  every  view,  therefore,  that  we  take  of  the  matter,  it  is 
extremely  improbable  that  there  is  here  any  mej\tion  of  stature. 
The  idea  is  foreign  to  the  scope  of  the  discourse  ;  the  thing  said  is 
ill-suited  to  the  words  connected  with  it,  and  ill-adapted  to  the 
hearers,  as  it  proceeds  on  the  hypothesis,  that  a  sort  of  solici- 
tude was  general  among  them,  which  cannot  reasonably  be  sup- 
posed to  have  affected  one  hundredth  part  of  them.     It  is  a  very 
ingenious,  and  more  than  plausible,  conjecture  of  Wet.   that 
i}Mx(oi,  or  the  ordinary  term  of  life,  is  here  considered  under  the 
figure  of  the  stadium,  or  course  gone  over  by  the  runners,  of 
which,  as  it  consisted  of  several  hundred  cubits,  a  single  cubit 
was  but  as  one  step,  and  consequently  a  very  small   proportion 
of  the  whole,  and  what  might  not  improperly  be  termed  £A«- 
Xi^ov.      It  adds  to  the  credibility  of  this,  that  the  life  of  man 
is  once  and  again  distinguished  in  Scripture  by  the  appellation 
(J^afw?,  the  course  or  ground  run  over  by  the  racers.     This  is  the 
more  remarkable,  and  shows  how  much  their  ears  were  accustom- 
ed to  the  trope;  as  it  occurs  sometimes  in  places  where  no  formal 
comparison  to  the  gymnastic  exercises,  is  made,  or  even  hinted. 
Thus,  Acts  xiii,  25.  As  John  fiilfdled  his  course,  ai  t7rXr,pii  rov 
(J^ettsv.     XX.  24.  Neither  count  I  my  life  dear  unto  myself,  says 
Paul,  so  that  I  might  finish  my  course  zcithjoy,  ai  reXnatrxi  rov 
ooouov  fA.ii.     And  2  Tim.  iv.  7.   /  have  finished  my  course,  ro  $^o- 
tcoy  rereXeKX.      The  phrase  o   rpo^oi   tij?   yeveyiui,   James  iii.  6.  has 
nearly  the  same  signification.     The  uncommon  pains  which  He- 
rod the  great  had  taken  to  establish  gymnastic  exercises  in  the 
country,  to  the  great  scandal  of  many,  had  familiarized  the  pen- 


340  NOTES  ON  en.  xn. 

pie  to  such  idioms.  Several  critics  of  name  favour  this  interpre- 
tation, amongst  whom  are  Ham.  Wet.  and  Pearce.  The  An. 
Hey.  Wes.  and  Wa.  adopt  it.  Some  other  interpreters  give  it  as 
a  probable  Tersion  in  their  notes. 

31.  Seek  ye  the  kingdom  of  God,  (^tiTHn  t>jv  (ictTtXnciv  tjj  Qm^ 
Vul.  Qucerite primum  regnum  Dei  etjiistitiam  ejus.  There  is 
no  countenance  from  either  MSS.  or  versions  worth  mentioning 
in  favour  of  primum,  or  oi  etjustitiam  ejus. 

32.  Mij  little  flock,  to  (AJtce^oy  ts-oii^'hov.  E.  T.  Little  flock.  We 
have  here  the  diminutive  jr-a/ftviav  combined  with  the  adjective 
fciK^ov,  little.  It  is,  therefore,  an  expression  of  tenderness,  at  the 
same  time  that  it  suggests  the  actual  smallness  of  their  number. 
It  has  also  the  article,  which  we  never  use  in  the  vocative.  In 
our  language  we  cannot  better  supply  the  diminutive  and  the 
article,  than  by  the  possessive  pronoun. 

35.  The  Vul.  after  ardentes,  adds  in  manibus  vestris.  This 
variation  is  peculiar  to  that  version.     The  Sax.  follows  the  Gr. 

46.  JVith  the  faithless,  ih.£tx  rm  aTriTuv.  E.  T.  JVith  the  un- 
believers. Those  are  called  here  ai3-<r«<  who,  in  Mt.  are  called 
vTreKfiTtnt.  Both  words  have  great  extent  of  signification.  And 
for  the  reason  given,  in  the  note  on  that  passage,  against  render- 
ing vTroKptrai  hypocrites,  xTrirot  ought  not  here  to  be  rendered  mm- 
believers,  but,  according  to  the  most  common  acceptation  of  the 
word,  the  faithless,  that  is,  persons  totally  unworthy  of  trust. 

49.  What  uwuld  I,  but  that  it  were  kindled?  n  .S-eXnf,  «  jjiJjj 
a,r/i(pOyj',  E.  T.  What  will  I,  if  it  be  already  kindled?  Vul.  Quid 
volo  nisi  iit  accendatur  ?  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Quid  volo,  si  jam  accen- 
sus  est?  Cas.  Qui,  si  jam  incensus  est,  quid  volo  ?  It  is  evident 
to  me,  that  the  sense  is  better  expressed  in  the  Vul.  than  by  any 
of  the  modern  La.  interpreters^  The  objection  Mhich  Be.  and 
after  him  Palairet,  make,  that  the  «  is  there  translated  as  if 
it  were  «  jjh-,,  is  of  no  moment,  since  the  «  in  this  verse  is,  by  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  latter,  not  the  hypothetical  conjunction, 
but  a  particle  expressive  of  a  wish.  What  Gro.  says  of  this  ren, 
dering  is  entirely  just,  "in  eo  sensum  recte  expressit,  verba  non 
"  annumeravit."  The  very  next  verse  would  sufficiently  evince 
the  meaning,  if  there  could  be  a  reasonable  doubt  about  it.  / 
have  an  immersion  to  undergo,  and  how  am  I  pained  till  it  be 
accomplished?  '  Since  the  advancement  of  true  religion,  which 


ClI.  XIIT. 


S.  LUKE.  341 


'  is  the  greatest  blessing  to  mankind,  must  be  attended  with 
'  such  unhappy  divisions,  I  even  long  till  they  take  place.'  L. 
Cl.  renders  it  in  the  same  way  with  the  Vul.  Que  souhaite.je, 
sinon  quHl  fut  deja  enjiamme  ^  Here  the  meaning  is  expressed 
with  simplicity  and  modesty,  as  in  the  original.  But  I  cannot 
help  disrelishing  much  the  manner  in  which  Dod.  and  after  him 
Wy.  have  expressed  it,  though  in  the  general  import  it  does  not 
differ  from  the  last  mentioned.  What  do  I  wish  ?  Oh,  that  it 
were  alreadjj  kindled  !  This  form  of  venting  a  wish,  is,  in  a  case 
like  the  present,  when  he  knew  that  the  event  w^ould  soon  hap- 
pen, strongly  expressive  of  impatience.  I  know  not  any  thing 
whereby  interpreters  have  more  injured  the  native  beauty  of  the 
style  of  Scripture,  than  by  the  attempts  they  have  sometimes 
made  to  express  the  sense  very  emphatically. 

58.  To  satisfy  him,  a7rii>i^x)c6M  «7r'  uvth.  E.  T.  That  thou 
ntayest  be  delivered  from  him.  But  a  man  is  delivered  from 
another  who  makes  his  escape  from  him,  either  by  artifice  or  by 
force,  or  who  is  rescued  by  another.  Now  the  words  delivered 
from  suggest  some  such  method  of  deliverance,  rather  than  that 
which  is  here  signified  by  the  term  x7iryiXXo!,^6M,^  deliverance  with 
consent.  To  this  the  parallel  place,  Mt.  v.  25.  also  evidently 
points. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

9.  Perhaps  it  will  bear  fruit ;  if  not,  thou  inayest  after. 

wards  cut  it  down,  jc'cev  fuv  7roi>jir*i  kcc^ttov'  «  ^£  f^>l'/s,  «5  fo  f^eX?^ov  BK.- 

xei^«5  afTjjy.  E.  T.  And  if  it  bear  fruit,  well ;  and  if  not,  then 
after  that  thou  shall  cut  it  down.  It  is  plain,  that  there  is  an 
ellipsis  in  the  Gr.  ;  some  word  is  wanting  after  xajwov  to  com- 
plete the  sense.  In  sentences  of  the  like  form,  in  Gr.  writers, 
when  the  words  wanting  are  easily  supplied  by  the  aid  of  the 
context,  this  figure  is  not  unfrequent :  nay,  it  has  sometimes  a 
peculiar  energy.  As  the  effect,  however.  Is  not  the  same  in  mo- 
dern languages,  it  is  generally  thought  better  to  complete  the 
sentence,  either  by  adding  the  word,  or  words,  wanting,  or  by 
making  a  small  alteration  on  the  form  of  expression.  I  have 
preferred  the  latter  of  these  methods,  our  translators  have  fol- 
lowed the  former.  The  difference  is  net  material. 
VOL.  IV.  43 


342  NOTES  ON  ch.  xiv, 

15.  Hypocrites.  E.  T.  Thou  hi/i.ocriie.  In  the  common  .Gr. 
we  read  uttox^itu,,  in  the  singular  number  ;  but  in  many  MSS. 
some  of  principal  note,  in  the  Com.  and  other  early  editions,  in 
the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  Sax.  and  Ara.  Tersions  we  find  the 
word  in  the  plural.  The  very  next  words,  CKxr^  WjM.»v,  show 
that  our  Lord's  answer  was  not  addressed  solely  to  the  director ^ 
but  was  intended  for  all  those  present  who  espoused  his  side  of 
the  question.  Mill,  and  several  other  critics,  have  preferred 
this  reading. 

23.  If  once  the  master  of  the  house  shall  have  arisen^  «^'  » 
«»  ey£^flj>  <j  ojx«(j£o-5roT^5.  Vul.  Cum  autem  intraverit  jiai  erf  ami- 
lias.  In  one  or  two  copies  we  find  Ho-fAfij}  instead  of  tyt^6i!.  But 
this  reading  of  the  Vul.  though  favoured  by  Cas.  and  the  Sax. 
translation,  has  no  support  of  either  MSS.  or  versions  to  entitle 
it  to  regard. 

31.  Herod  intendeth  to  kill  thee,  'HfivJ'jjs  ^eXn  <rt  «T(5xt«»«/.  E. 
T.  Herod  zmll  kill  thee.  But  if  this  last  declaration  in  Eng.  were 
to  be  turned  into  Gr.  the  proper  version  would  be,  not  what  is 
said  by  L.  but  'H^aSttg  <rt  oc.7r0x.Tem.  The  term  will  in  Eng.  so  si- 
tuated, is  a  mere  sign  of  the  future,  and  declares  no  more  than 
that  the  event  will  take  place.  This  is  not  what  is  declared  by 
the  Evangelist.  His  expression  denotes  that,  at  that  very  time, 
it  was  Herod's  purpose  to  kill  him  ;  for  the  S-eAh  here  is  the 
principal  verb  ;  the  nvill  in  the  translation  is  no  more  than  an 
auxiliary.  Nay,  the  two  propositions  (though,  to  a  superficial 
view,  they  appear  coincident)  are  in  reality  so  different,  that  the 
one  may  be  true  and  the  other  false.  Suppose  that,  instead  of 
Herod,  Pilate  had  been  the  person  spoken  of.  In  that  case,  to 
have  said  in  Gr.  nacer®-  5-£A«  <re  ocTroyjreiDM^  would  have  been  tell- 
"ing  a  falsehood  ;  for  the  history  shows  how  much  his  inclination 
drew  the  contrary  way  :  whereas,  to  have  said  UiXxr®^  a-e  etToKTc- 
v«  would  have  been  affirming  no  more  than  the  event  verified,  and 
might,  therefore,  have  been  accounted  prophetical.  Mt.  xvi.  24. 
N.  J.vii.  17.  N. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

1.  Of  one  of  the  rulers  who  was  a  Pharisee,  tiv<^  rav  a^yfltrm 
Twv  ^ot,gi(rct,im.    E,  T.  Of  one  of  the  chiej  Pharisees.  I  agree  with 


oH.  XIV.  S.  LUKE.  '  34S 

Gro.  Ham.  Wh.  Pearce,  and  others,  that  «^;c'»>'''«  properly  de. 
notes  persons  in  autliority,  rulers,  magistrates;  and  that  any 
other  kind  of  eminence  or  superiority  would  have  been  distin.. 
guished  by  the  term  tt^mtoi,  as  in  ch.  xix.  47.  Mr.  vi.  21.  Acts 
xiii.  50,  xvii.  4.  xxv.  2.  xxviii.  17. 

5.  If  his  ass  or  his  ox,  ov(^  ;;  /3»;.  Both  the  Sy.  interpre- 
ters have  read  here  u<(^,  son,  instead  of  ov(^,  ass,  and  so  have 
some  of  the  Fathers.  The  number  and  value  of  the  MSS.  which 
preserve  this  reading,  are  very  considerable ;  and  though  it  is 
not  found  in  any  ancient  version  except  the  Sy.  yet,  if  we  were 
to  be  determined  solely  by  the  external  evidence,  I  should  not 
hesitate  to  declare  that  the  balance  is  in  its  favour.  There  is, 
however,  an  internal  improbability  in  some  things,  which  very 
strong  outward  evidence  cannot  surmount.  The  present  case  is 
an  example;  and  therefore,  though  this  reading  has  been  admit, 
ted  by  Wet.  and  some  other  critics,  I  cannot  help  rejecting  it, 
as,  upon  the  whole,  exceedingly  improbable.  My  reasons  are 
these  :  First,  Nothing  is  more  common  in  Scripture  style,  where. 
TCr  propriety  admits  it,  than  joining  in  this  manner  fAe  ox  and 
ike  ass,  which  were  in  Judea  almost  the  only  beasts  in  common 
iise  for  work  In  the  O.  T.  it  occurs  very  frequently.  We  find 
it  in  the  tenth  commandment,  as  recorded  in  Exod.  xx.  and  both 
in  the  fourth  and  in  the  tenth,  as  repeated  in  Deut.  v.  When  a 
case  like  the  present  is  supposed,  of  falling  into  a  pit,  Exod. 
xxi.  33.  both  are,  as  usual,  specified.  If  a  man  shall  dig  a  pit, 
and  not  cover  if,  and  an  ox  or  an  ass  fall  therein — .  That  this 
was  also  conformable  to  our  Lord's  manner,  we  may  see  from 
the  preceding  chapter,  v.  15.  JVho  is  there  amongst  you  that 
doth  not,  on  the  Sabbath,  loose  his  ox  or  his  ass  front  the  stall, 
and  lead  him  aioay  to  watering?  Secondly,  Such  a  combination, 
as  that  of  the  ass  and  the  ox,  is  not  more  familiar  and  more  na- 
tural, than  the  other,  of  a  man's  son  and  his  ox,  is  unnatural  and 
unprecedented.  Things  thus  familiarly  coupled  in  discourse, 
are  commonly  things  homogeneal,  or  of  natures,  at  least,  not 
very  dissimilar.  Such  are,  the  son  and  the  daughter,  the  man. 
servant  and  the  maid-servant,  the  ox  and  the  ass.  Thirdly,  In 
those  specimens  which  our  Lord  has  given  of  confuting  the  Pha. 
risees,  by  retorting  on  them  their  own  practice,  the  argument  is 
alvrays  of  that  kind  whii^h  logicians  call  u  fortiori.     This  cir- 


344  NOTES  ON  cii.  xit. 

cumstance  is  sometimes  taken  notice  of  in  the  application  of  the 
argument,  and  even  when  it  is  not  expressly  pointed  out,  it  is 
plain  enough  from  the  sense.  See  ch.  xiii.  15,  16.  xv.  2,  3,  4  8, 
9.  Mt.  xii,  11,  12.  But  if  the  word  here  be  son^  this  method  is 
reversed,  and  the  argument  loses  all  its  energy.  A  man,  pos- 
sessed of  even  the  Pharisaical  notions  concerning  the  Sabbath, 
might  think  it,  in  the  case  supposed,  excusable  from  natural  af- 
fection, or  even  justifiable  from  paternal  duty,  to  give  the  neces. 
sary  aid  to  a  child  in  danger  of  perishing,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
think  it  inexcusable  to  transgress  the  commandment  for  one  to 
whom  he  is  under  no  such  obligations.  Fourthly,  When  the 
nature  of  the  thing,  and  the  scope  of  the  place,  render  it  credible 
that  a  particular  reading  is  erroneous,  the  facility  of  falling  into 
such  an  error  adds  greatly  to  the  credibility.  Now  i//©-  and 
cv(^,  in  writing,  have  so  much  resemblance,  that  we  cannot  won- 
der that  a  hasty  transcriber  should  have  mistaken  one  for  the 
other.  If  the  mistake  has  been  very  early,  the  number  of  copies 
now  affected  by  it  would  be  the  greater.  It  is  too  mechanical 
a  mode  of  criticizing,  to  be  determined  by  outward  circumstances 
alone,  and  to  pay  no  regard  to  those  internal  probabilities,  of 
which  every  one  who  reflects  must  feel  the  importance, 

15.  PVho  shall  feast^  oi  (pxyercci  x^Tov,  E.  T.  Who  shall  eat 
bread.  To  eat  bread  is  a  well-known  Heb.  idiom  for  to  share 
in  a  repast,  whether  it  be  at  a  common  meal,  or  at  a  sumptuous 
feast.  The  word  bread  is  not  understood  as  suggesting  either 
the  scantiness  or  the  meanness  of  the  fare, 

^  In  the  reign.,  ev  tj?  ^entrtXHx.  E.  T.  In  the  kingdom.  The 
E,  T,  makes,  to  appearance,  the  word  PiotcrtXeioe,  here,  refer  solely 
to  the  future  state  of  the  saints  in  heaven.  This  version  makes 
it  relate  to  those  who  should  be  upon  the  earth  in  the  reign  of  the 
Messiah.  My  reasons  for  preferring  the  latter  are  these  :  1st, 
This  way  of  speaking  of  the  happiness  of  the  Messiah's  adminis- 
tration, suits  entirely  the  hopes  and  wishes  which  seem  to  have 
been  long  entertained  by  the  nation  concerning  it,  (See  ch.  x. 
23,  24.  Mt.  xiii.  10,  11.)  2dly,  The  parable  which,  in  answer  to 
the  remark,  was  spoken  by  our  Lord,  is,  on  all  hands,  under- 
stood to  represent  the  Christian  dispensation.  Sdly,  The  ob- 
Tious  intention  of  that  parable  is  to  insinuate  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  prejudices  which,  from  notions  of  secular  felicity 


CH.    XIV. 


S.  LUKE.  346 


and  grandeur,  the  nation,  in  general,  entertained,  on  that  subject ; 
what,  in  prospect,  they  fancied  so  blessed  a  period,  would,  when 
present,  be  exceedingly  neglected  and  despised  ;  and,  in  this  view, 
nothing  could  be  more  apposite ;  whereas,  there  appears  no 
appositeness  in  the  parable  on  the  other  interpretation. 

23.  Compel  people  to  come,  uvxyKscrav  etTiXB-nv.  Ch.  xxiv. 
29.  N. 

26.  Hate  not  his  father,  a  mfh  rav  vcx.TtP'x,  icivm.  It  is  very 
plain,  that  hating,  used  in  this  manner,  was,  among  the  Hebrews, 
an  idiomatic  expression  foi  loving  less.  It  is  the  same  sentiment. 
which,  in  Mt.'s  Gospel,  x.  37.  is  conveyed  in  these  words.  He 
zcho  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me — .  In  the  strict  ac- 
ceptation of  the  term,  the  doctrine  of  Christ  does  not  permit  us 
to  hate  any  one,  not  even  an  enemy,  much  less  a  parent,  to  whom 
it  exacts  a  more  substantial  honour  than  the  traditional  system 
of  the  scribes  represented  as  necessary.  The  things  here  enume- 
rated, particularly  what  finishes  the  list,  of  which  I  am  to  speak 
immediately,  show  evidently  that  the  language  is  figurative. 

^  Nay,  a?id  himself  too,  en  JV  >^  t>}v  iavTn  -^vy^^iv.  E.  T.  Yea, 
and  his  own  life  also.  Vul.  Adhuc  etiam  et  animam  suam.  Cas. 
Atque  adeo  suam  ipsius  animam,  which  he  explains  on  the  mar- 
gin, semetipsum.  Dio.  renders  it  anzi  anchora  se  stesso.  The 
reasons  for  which  I  have  preferred  this  last  manner  are  the  fol- 
lowing: First,  T^y^jj  is  generally  used  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom 
as  corresponding  to  the  Heb.  vai  nephesh,  soul  or  life.  Now  it 
is  well  known,  that  this  word,  with  the  affix,  is  frequently  used 
in  Heb,  for  the  reciprocal  pronoun.  Thus  >ifDi  naphshi,  com. 
monly  rendered  in  the  Sep.  »?'  ^''-^x^  i'"'?  ^^  myself,  iiyfiJ  naphshc' 
cha,  jj  -^vxii  e-a,  thyself,  and  so  of  the  rest.  See  Lev.  xi.  43. 
Esth.  iv.  13,  Ps.  cxxxi.  2.  Now  as  there  runs  through  the  whole 
of  this  verse  in  L.  an  implicit  comparison  ;  to  preserve  an  uni- 
formity in  the  manner  of  naming  the  particulars,  shews  better 
the  preference  which  our  Lord  claims  in  our  hearts,  not  only  to 
our  nearest  relatives,  but  also  to  ourselves.  Secondly,  I  have 
avoided  the  phrase  hating  his  life,  as  ambiguous,  and  often  used, 
not  improperly,  of  those  who  destroy  themselves.  Now  the 
disposition  which  our  Lord  here  requires  of  his  disciples,  is 
exceedingly  different  from  that  of  those  persons.  For  the  like 
reason  I  have  not  said  hate  his  ozsn  soul.,  though  what  many 


346  NOTES  ON  ch.  xv. 

would  account  the  most  literal  version  of  them  all.  For  this  ex- 
pression is  also  used  sometimes  (see  Prov.  xxix.  24.)  in  a  sense 
quite  different  from  the  present.  Thirdly,  I  prefer  here  this 
strong  manner  of  exhibiting  the  sentiment,  as,  in  such  cases, 
whatever  shows  most  clearly  that  the  words  cannot  be  literally 
understood,  serves  most  effectually  to  suggest  the  figurative  and 
true  interpretation.  Now  as,  in  the  common  acceptation,  to  hate 
one's  parents  would  be  impious,  the  Apostle  Paul  tells  us,  Eph. 
V.  29.  that  to  hate  one's  self  is  impossible.  It  is  not  in  this  ac- 
ceptation then  that  we  can  look  for  the  meaning. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

1.  The  Vul.  the  Sy.  and  the  Sax.  have  no  word  answering  to 
all  in  this  sentence. 

16.  He  was  fain,  iTreSvf^ii.     Ch.  xvi.  21.  N. 

^  TVith  the  husks,  xtto  rav  Kspcunm,  Vul.  De  silhjnis.  That 
xc^oiTiov  answers  to  siliqua,  and  signifies  a  husk,  or  pod,  wherein 
the  seeds  of  some  plants,  especially  those  of  the  leguminous  tribe^ 
are  contained,  is  evident.  But  both  the  Gr.  y^epecriov  and  the  La. 
siliqua  signify  also  the  fruit  of  the  carob-tree,  a  tree  very  com- 
mon in  the  Levant,  and  in  the  southern  parts  of  Europe,  as  Spain 
and  Italy.  The  Sy.  and  Ara.  words  are  of  the  same  import. 
This  fruit  still  continues  to  be  used  for  the  same  purpose,  the 
feeding  of  swine.  It  is  also  called  St.  Johii's  bread,  from  the 
opinion  that  the  Baptist  used  it  in  the  wilderness.  It  is  the  pod 
only  that  is  eaten,  which  shows  the  propriety  of  the  names  y-i^a. 
riev  and  siliqua,  and  of  rendering  it  into  Eng.  husk.  Miller  says, 
it  is  mealy,  and  has  a  sweetish  taste,  and  that  it  is  eaten  by  the 
poorer  sort,  for  it  grows  in  the  common  hedges,  and  is  of  little 
account. 

18.   Against  heaven,  that  is,  against  God.  Diss.  V.  P.  I.  §  4. 

22.  Bring  hither  the  principal  robe,  e^eveyKars  rtiv  ^-ohtiv  r?)v 
TT^uTTjv.  Vul.  Citoproferte  sfolam  jjrimam.  Tcc^tai;  is  found  in 
the  Cam.  and  one  other  MS.  of  small  note.  The  second  Sy.  Cop. 
Sax.  and  Arm.  versions  have  also  read  so. 

30.  Thy  living,  c-a  ray  l^tev.  Vul.  Subslantiam  suam.  The 
reading  of  the  Vul.  has  no  support  from  ancient  versions  or  Gr. 


CH.  XVI.  S.  LUKE.  347 

MSS.  unless  we  reckon  the  Cam.  which  reads  v*n*  without  any 
pronoun. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

8.  Commended  the  prudence  of  the  unjust  stezoard,  iTmni-e  roi 
(.iKovof-Lov  Tiii  x$i!ctcii,  oTs  <p^mifyLU(;  67roit]T£v.  E.  T.  Co/nmend^d  the 
unjust  steward^  because  he  had  done  zoisely.  When  an  active 
verb  has  for  its  subject  a  quality,  disposition,  or  action,  of  a 
person,  it  is  a  common  Heb.  idiom  to  mention  the  person,  as  that 
which  is  directly  affected  by  the  verb,  and  to  introduce  the  other 
(as  we  see  done  here)  by  a  conjunction, — commended  the  unjust 
stezi'ard,  because  he  had  acted  prudently^  that  is  commended  the 
prudence  lohich  he  had  shown  in  his  action.  Properly  his  mas- 
ter commended  neither  the  actor  nor  the  action,  but  solely  the 
provident  care  about  his  future  interest,  which  the  action  dis- 
played ;  a  care  worthy  the  imitation  of  those  who  have  in  view 
a  nobler  futurity,  eternal  life. 

*  Tev  oiKcvofAov  Tiji  x^tKica  for  rov  xhtcov,  in  like  manner  as  o  xpi- 
Tffi,  T3J5  ct^iyAxc,^  ch.  xviii.  6.  for  o  ct^iKOi,  the  unjust  judge. 

^  In  conducting  their  affairs,  «5  tjjv  yevexv  t^jv  'exvruv.  E.  T. 
In  their  generation.  Tiyex,  is  the  word  by  which  the  Seventy 
commonly  render  the  Heb.  in  dor,  which  signifies  not  only  age, 
seculum,  and  generation,  or  the  people  of  the  age,  but  also  a 
man's  manner  of  life.  Thus  Noah  is  said.  Gen.  vi,  9.  to  be  Tf- 
/««5  £v  rtj  yvieoe,  uvra.  Houbigant  renders  it  integer  in  viis  suis. 
It  is  true  he  conjectures  very  unnecessarily  a  different  reading. 
Yet  he  himself,  in  another  place,  admits  this  as  one  meaning  of 
the  Heb.  word  ^,t  dor.  Thus  Is.  liii.  8.  the  words  rendered  iu 
the  Sep.  TrjV  yitiM  avrn  r/?  hy;y>)'^ifcci,  he  translates  ejus  omnem 
vitam  quis  secum  reputabit  ?  and  in  the  notes  defends  this  trans- 
lation of  the  Heb.  in  dor.  To  the  same  purpose  bishop  Lowth, 
in  his  late  version  of  that  prophet,  His  manner  of  life  zcho  xcould 
declare  ? 

9.  JVith  the  deceitful  mammon,  en.  m  yMf^&jvx  tjj?  ahKiem.  E.  T. 
Of  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness.  Here  again  the  substan- 
tive is  employed  by  the  same  Hebraism,  as  in  the  preceding  verse, 
to  supply  the  place  of  the  adjective.  t««M«v«  t»;?  ahy-icc.  as  o/xov«- 


348  NOTES  ON  ch.  xti 

puv  Tw  cthxixi.  The  epithet  u7irighieous,  here  applied  to  mam- 
mon or  riches,  does  not  imply  acquired  by  injustice  or  any  un- 
due means  ;  but,  in  this  application,  it  denotes  false  riches,  that 
is,  deceitful,  not  to  be  relied  on.  What  puts  this  beyond  a  ques- 
tion  IS,  that,  in  v.  11.  thi  u^ixm  lu^xf^met  is  contrasted,  not  by  to 
$iKxiov,  but  by  To  xXi}6i)iev,  the  former  relating  to  earthly  treasure, 
the  latter  to  heavenly.  For  the  import  of  mammon,  see  Mt.  vi. 
24.  N. 

^  After  your  discharge,  irxv  ixXiTrnTe.  E.  T.  When  ye  fail. 
As  this  is  spoken  in  the  application  of  the  parable,  it  is  to  be 
understood  as  referring  to  that  circumstance  which  must  sooner 
or  later  happen  to  all,  and  which  bears  some  analogy  to  the 
steward's  dismission  from  his  office.  This  circumstance  is  death, 
by  which  we  are  totally  discharged  from  our  employment  and 
probation  here.  The  word  fail,  in  the  common  version,  is  ob- 
scure and  indefinite.  I  have  preferred  discharge,  as  both  adapted 
to  the  expression  of  the  Evangelist,  and  sufficiently  explicit.  It 
bears  a  manifest  reference  to  the  act  whereby  a  trustee  is  divested 
of  his  trust,  and  is  also  strictly  applicable  to  our  removal  out  of 
this  world.  Cas.  has  happily  preserved  this  double  allusion  in 
La.  by  saying,  Qiium  defunctifueritis.  L.  Cl.  has  not  been  so 
fortunate  in  Fr. ;  he  says,  Quand  vous  serez  expirez.  The  verb 
here  shows  clearly  the  future  event  pointed  to,  but  detaches  it 
altogether  from  the  story  ;  for  the  word  expirez  cannot  be  appli- 
ed to  the  discarding  of  a  steward  from  office.  Of  so  much  use 
in  interpreting  do  we  sometimes  find  words  which  are,  in  a  cer. 
tain  degree,  equivocal. 

^  Into  the  eternal  mansions,  «5  t^?  etiuna^  (rx.yivci<;.  E.  T.  Into 
everlasting  habitations.  As  e-x^jv^j  properly  signifies  a  tent  or 
tabernacle,  which  is  a  temporary  and  moveable  habitation,  some 
have  thought  it  not  so  fitly  joined  with  the  epithet  cc.tuiio(;.  It  is 
true  that,  in  strictness,  c-x-Kr^  means  no  more  than  a  tent ;  but  it 
is  also  true,  that  sometimes  it  is  used  with  greater  latitude,  for 
a  dtcelling  of  any  kind,  without  regard  either  to  its  nature  or  its 
duration.  The  article  has  been  very  improperly,  in  this  passage, 
overlooked  by  our  translators.  It  adds  to  the  precision,  and 
consequently  to  the  perspicuity,  of  the  application.  J.  i.  14.  ^  N. 

16.  Every  occupant  entereth  it  by  force,  Tretf;  «5  uvrtj^  ^tx^srui. 
Fi-T.  Every  man  presseth  into  it.  Though  this  last  interpre- 
tation may  be  accounted  more  literal  than  that  here  given,  it  is 


CH.  XVI.  S.  LUKE.  349 

farther  from  the  import  of  the  sentence.  The  intention  is  mani. 
festly  to  inform  us,  not  how  great  the  number  was  of  those  who 
entered  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  v^hat  the  manner  was  m 
Mhich  all  who  entered  obtained  admission.  The  import,  there, 
fore,  is  only,  Evcr?j  one  zcho  ent<:reth  it,  cntereth  it  by  force. 
We 'know,  that  during  our  Lord's  ministry,  which,  was,  (as 
John's  also  v-as)  among  the  Jews;  both  his  success  and  that  of 
the  Baptist  were  comparatively  small.  Christ's  Hock  was  lite- 
rally  even  to  the  last,  ^<.*f^v<»v  ^«?ev,  a  very  little Jiock.  Of  the 
backwardness  of  the  people,  we  hear  frequently  in  the  Gospel. 
He  came  to  his  oxen,  says  the  Apostle  John,  bat  his  own  re- 
(,eivedhim  not.  And  he  himself  complains,  Ye  will  not  come 
unto  me,  that  ye  may  have  life.  It  was  not  till  after  he  zcas 
lifted  up  upon  the  cross,  that,  according  to  his  own  prediction, 
he  drew  all  men  to  him. 

<10.  A  poor  man,  -rro^x^,  r<5.  E.T.  A  certain  be^-gar.  Though 
either  way  of  rendering  is  good,  the  fi.st  is  more  conformable  to 
the  extensive  application  of  the  Gr.  word,  than  the  second.  To 
be'T  is  always  in  the  N.  T.  «^«'r£<v  or  ^po<rMr,rv.  The  present 
paKicipIe  '^po.c.,r^v,  agreeably  to  a  well  known  Heb.  idiom, 
strictly  denotes  a  beggar. 

21.  Was  fain  to  feed  on  the  crumbs,  iTrthf^Mv  xT'^'^^'^'^' '^'^'^ 
-rm^iyjc,,.  E.  T.  Desiring  to  be  fd  xciih  the  crumbs.  I  agree 
with  those  who  do  not  think  there  is  any  foundation,  in  this  ex- 
pression, for  saying  that  he  was  refused  the  crumbs.  First,  the 
word  £^<foi^'^»  does  not  imply  so  much  ;  secondly,  the  other  cir. 
cumstances  of  the  story  render  this  notion  improbable.  First, 
as  to  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  the  verb  ex/^.;^£«  is  used 
by  the  Seventy,  Is.  i.  29.  for  rendering  the  lleb.  ^ra  bahar,  ele- 
git. The  clause  is  rendered,  in  the  E.  T.  For  the  gardens  which 
ye  have  chosen.  In  like  manner,  in  Is.  Iviii.  2.  the  word  occurs 
twice,  answering  to  the  Heb.  psn  chaphats,  to  delight,  or  take 
pleasure  in  ;  yvm.ca  f^arcn  o^iii  iTctdvf^HTiv  ;  again,  iyyi'^a^  Qeu  e't'- 
^vf^a^Ti,.  E.  T.  They  delight  to  know  my  ways  ;  and.  They  take 
delight  in  approaching  to  God.  It  is  not  necessary  to  multiply 
examples.  That  the  notion,  that  he  did  not  obtain  the  crumbs, 
is  not  consistent  with  the  other  circumstances,  is  evident.  When 
the  historian  says,  that  he  was  laid  at  the  rich  man's  gate,  he 
means  not,  surely,  that  he  was  once  there,  but  that  he  was 
VOL.   IV.  44 


350  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvi. 

Tisually  so  placed,  which  would  not  probably  have  happened,  if- 
he  had  got  nothing  at  all.  The  other  circumstances  concur  in 
heightening  the  probability.  Such  are,  the  rich  man's  immedi- 
ately knowing  him,  his  asking  that  he  might  be  made  the  instru- 
ment  of  the  relief  wanted;  and,  let  me  add  this,  that  though 
the  Patriarch  upbraids  (he  rich  man  with  the  carelessness  and 
luxury  in  which  he  had  lived,  he  says  not  a  word  of  inhumanity  ; 
yet,  if  we  consider  Lazarus  as  having  experienced  it  so  recently, 
it  could  hardly,  on  this  occasion,  have  failed  to  be  taken  notice 
of.  Can  we  suppose  that  Abraham,  in  the  charge  he  brought 
against  him,  would  have  mentioned  only  the  things  of  least  mo- 
ment, and  omitted  those  of  the  greatest?  For  similar  reasons,  I 
have  rendered  e7r£6v/x,ii^  ch.  xv.  16.  in  the  same  manner  as  here. 
In  the  E.  T.  the  expression  there  suggests  more  strongly,  that 
his  desire  was  frustrated  :  lie  would  fain  havejilled  his  belly, 
which,  in  the  common  idiom,  always  implies,  but  could  not.  It 
appears  very  absurd,  that  one  should  have  the  charge  of  keeping 
swine,  who  had  it  not  in  his  power  to  partake  with  them.  How 
could  it  be  prevented  ?  Would  the  master  multiply  his  servants 
in  time  of  famine,  and  send  one  to  watch  and  keep  this  keeper? 
The  clause, /or  nobody  gave  him  ought,  is  to  be  interpreted  not 
strictly,  but  agreeably  to  popular  language;  as  though  it  had 
been  said  that  in  the  general  calamity  he  was  much  neglected, 
and  if  he  had  not  had  recourse  to  the  food  allotted  for  the  swine, 
he  would  have  been  in  imminent  danger  of  starving. 

^  Much  injury  has  been  done  to  our  Saviour's  instructions, 
by  the  ill-judged  endeavours  of  some  expositors  to  improve  and 
strengthen  them.  I  know  no  better  example  for  illustrating  this 
remark,  than  the  story  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  Many,  dis- 
satisfied with  its  simplicity,  as  related  by  the  Evangelist,  and 
desirous,  one  Mould  think,  to  vindicate  the  character  of  the 
Judge  from  the  charge  of  excessive  severity  in  the  condemnation 
of  the  former,  load  that  wretched  man  with  all  the  crimes  which 
blacken  human  nature,  and  for  which  they  have  no  autho- 
rity from  the  words  of  inspiration.  They  will  have  him  to 
have  been  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard,  rapacious  and  unjust,  cruel 
and  hard-hearted,  one  who  spent  in  intemperance  what  he 
had  acquired  by  extortion  and  fraud.  Now,  I  must  be  allow- 
ed to  remark  that,  by  so  doing,  they  totally  pervert  the  de- 


CH.  xTi.  S.  LUKE.  351 

sign  of  this  most  instructive  lesson,  which  is  to  admonish  us,  not 
that  a  monster  of  wickedness,  who  has,  as  it  were,  devoted  his 
life  to  the  service  of  Satan,  shall  be  punished  in  the  other  world  ; 
but  that  the  man  who,  though  not  chargeable  with  doing  much 
ill,  does  little  or  ao  good,  and  lives,  though  not,  perhaps,  an  in. 
temperate,  a  sensual,  life ;  who,  careless  about  the  situation  of 
others,  exists  only  for  the  gratification  of  himself,  the  indulgence 
of  his  own  appetites,  and  his  own  vanity ;  shall  not  escape  pun- 
ishment.  It  is  to  show  the  danger  of  living  in  the  neglect  of  du- 
ties, though  not  chargeable  with  the  commission  of  crimes  ;  and, 
particularly  the  danger  of  considering  the  gifts  of  Providence  as 
our  own  property,  and  not  as  a  trust  from  our  Creator,  to  be 
employed  in  his  service,  and  for  which  we  are  accountable  to 
him.  These  appear  to  be  the  reasons  for  which  our  Lord  has 
here  shown  the  evil  of  a  life  which,  so  far  from  being  universally 
detested,  is,  at  this  day,  but  too  much  admired,  envied,  and  imi- 
tated. 

3  The  Vul.  adds,  Et  nemo  illi  dab  at ;  but  has  no  support, 
except  that  of  one  or  two  inconsiderable  MSS.  and  the  Sax.  ver- 
sion.  This  reading  has,  doubtless,  by  the  blunder  of  some  co- 
pyist,  been  transcribed  from  the  preceding  chapter. 

22.  Vul.  Sepultus  est  in  inferno.  This  reading  is  equally  un- 
supported with  the  former,  and  is  a  mere  corruption  of  the  text, 
arising  from  the  omission  of  the  conjunction  in  the  beginning  of 
■verse  23.  and  the  misplacing  of  the  points. 

For  the  illustration  of  several  words  in  this  and  the  following 
verses,  such  as  ev  t«  ^M — rov  x.oX7rov  m  Ali^aotf^ — c67r£nx,6y>vcii — dix- 
€„mi—hx7repa>o-i^—seeVre\.  Diss.  VL  P.  II.  h  19,  20. 

25.  A  great  many  MSS.  and  some  ancient  versions,  particu- 
larly  the  Sy.  read  aSi,  here,  instead  of  'oSe,  but  he  ;  and  this  read- 
ing is  adopted  by  Wet.  The  resemblance  in  sound,  as  well  as 
in  writing,  may  easily  account  for  a  much  greater  mistake  in 
copying.  But  that  the  common  reading  is  preferable,  can  hard- 
ly be  questioned.  In  it  o  Se  is  contrasted  to  o-v  ^e,  as  vw  is,  in 
like  manner,  to  ev  t,m  tra ;  but  to  'uSe  nothing  is  opposed.  Had 
fycii  occurred  in  the  other  member  of  the  comparison  made  by  the 
Patriarch,  I  should  have  readily  admitted  that  the  probability 
M  as  on  the  side  of  the  Sy.  version.     - 


■ifi  iNGTES  ON       ^  CM.  XTji 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

I.  To  his  disciples,  vpoe,  rsg  i^xbtiTcii.  Vul.  Ad  discipulos  suos^ 
This  reading  is  favoured  by  the  Al.  Cam.  and  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  MSS.  and  by  the  1st  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions. 
The  2d  Sy.  also  has  the  pronoun,  but  it  is  marked  as  doubtful 
with  an  asterisk.     The  sense  is  nowise  atfected. 

7.  Would  anij  oj yoa  xcho  hath  a  servant.^  kc.  say  to  him.,  on 
his  return  from  ihejield,  Come  immediately^  t<?  Jf  f|  y,nA)v  SaXov 
s'^uv —  iKTiXiovTi  ex.  m  ccy^hi  e^a  ivkui  Trcc^sXSm.  E.  T.  JVhich  of 
you.  having  a  sei'vant — ,  icill  say  unto  him  by  and  by.,  zchen  he 
is  come  from  thejicld^  Go —  Vul.  Quis  vestrum  habcns  servum 
—  Regresso  de  agro  dicat  illi.^  statim  transi.  The  only  mate- 
rial difference  between  these  two  versions  arises  from  the  diffe- 
rent manner  of  pointing.  I  have,  with  the  Vul.  joined  tv^iuc,  io 
TTctpiXSuv.  Our  translators  have  joined  it  to  s^et.  In  this  way  of 
reading  the  sentence,  the  adverb  is  no  better  than  an  expletive  ; 
in  the  other,  evhug  yroi^eXfciv  is  well  contrasted  to  (>ut»  Tci,vTx  <pxyB- 
(TM  in  the  following  verse. 

10.  JVe  have  conferred  no  favour^  ^aAa*  xx,piioi  ss-y.fv.  Diss. 
XII.  P.  I.  §  14. 

II.  Through  the  confines  of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  ha,  fjLtTn 
^xfixpiixr,  xcci  rxXiXoiiai.  E.  T.  TliroHgh  the  midst  of  Samaria 
and  Galilee.  I  agree  with  Gro.  and  others,  that  it  was  not 
through  the  heart  of  these  countries,  but,  on  the  contrary,  through 
those  parts  in  which  they  bordered  w  ith  each  other,  that  our  Lord 
travelled  at  that  time.  I  understand  the  words  J««  ftfs-s,  as  of 
the  same  import  with  oaa,  ittEc-av,  as  commonly  understood.  And 
in  this  manner  we  find  it  interpreted  by  the  Sy.  and  Ara.  trans, 
lators.  No  doubt  the  nearest  way,  from  where  our  Lord  resid- 
ed, was  through  the  midst  of  Samaria.  But  had  that  been  his 
route,  the  historian  had  no  occasion  to  mention  Galilee,  the 
country  whence  he  came;  and  it  he  had  mentioned  it,  it  would 
have  been  surely  more  proper,  in  speaking  of  a  journey  from  a 
Galilean  city  to  Jerusalem,  to  say,  through  Galilee  and  Samaria, 
than,  reversing  the  natural  order,  to  say,  through  Samaria  and  Ga- 
lilee. But  if,  as  I  understand  it,  the  confines  only  of  the  two 
countries  were  meant,  it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  which 
of  them  \Tas  first  named.     Besides,  the  incident  recorded  in  thf' 


.c«.  xvH.  S.  LUKE.  353 

following  words,  also,  renders  it  more  probable  that  he  was  on 
the  borders  of  Samaria,  than  in  the  midst  of  the  country.  It  ap- 
pears that  there  was  but  one  Samaritan  among  the  lepers  that 
were  cleansed,  who  is  called  an  alien,  the  rest  being  Jews. 

18.  This  ulicn,  o  ccXXoym<i  «^o«.  The  Jews  have,  evor  since 
tlie  captivity,  considered  the  Samaritans  as  aliens.  They  call 
tiiem  Ciithites  to  thie  day. 

21.    The  reign  of  God  is  zciihin  jjou,  v   BxTiXna  ry  Qm  cyrog 
iu0v  eriv-  Vul.  Er.  Zu,  Rcgnum  Dei  intra  vos  est.    Cas.  ihongh 
not  in  the  same  words,  to  the  same  purpose.      I  should  have  ad- 
ded Be.  too,  who  says,  Regnuni  Dei  intns  habetis  ;  had  he  not 
sliown,  in  his  Commentary,  that  he  meant  dilferei'tly,  denoting  no 
jnore,  by  intus.,  than  apud  vos.      Most  modern  translators,  and, 
among  them,  the  authors  of  our  common  version,  have  rendered 
the  words  in   the  same  way  as  the   Vul.  the  Sy.  and  ofher  an- 
cient interpreters.     L.   Cl.   and  Beau,  both,  say,  ylii  luilieu  d<i 
vans,  and  have  been  followed  by  some  Eng,  translators,  particu- 
larly  the  An.  and  Dod.  who  say,  Among  j/on.    This  way  of  ren- 
dering has  also  been  strenuously  supported,  of  late,   b-y  some 
learned  critics.     I  shall  brielly  state  the  evidence  on  bo<h  sides. 
'I'hat  the  preposition  £vto?,  before  a  plural  noun,  signifies  among, 
Raphelius  has  given  one  clear  example  from  Xenophon's  Expe- 
dition of  Cyrus,  the  only  one,  it  would  appear,  that  has  yet  been 
discovered,  for  to  it  later  critics,  as  Dod.  and  Pearce,  have  been 
obliged  to  recur.     I  have  taken  occasion,  once  and  again,  to  de- 
clare my  dissatisfaction   with   conclusions   founded   merely  on 
classical  authority,  in  cases  where  recourse  could  be  had  to  the 
writings  of  the  N.  T.  or  the  ancient  Gr.  translation  of  the  Old. 
I  acknowledge  that  evro?  docs  not  oft  occur  in  either,  but  it  does 
sometimes.      Yet  in  none  of  the  places  does  it  admit  the  signifi- 
cation which  those  critics  give  it  here.      As  I  would  avoid  being 
tedious,  I  shall  only  point  out  the  passages  to  the  learned  reader, 
leaving  him  to  consult  them  at  his  leisure.    The  only  other  place 
in  the  N.  T.  is  Mt.  xxiii.  26.     In  the  Sep.  Ps.  xxxviii.  4.  cviii. 
22.  or,  as  numbered  in   the  Eng.  Bible,  xxxix.  3.  cix.  22.  and 
Cant.  iii.  10.     These  are  all  the  passages  wherein  evt*?  occurs  as 
a  preposition   in  that  version.      But  it  is  sometimes  used  ellipti- 
cally  with  the  article  ru,  for  the  inside,  or  the  things  within,  as 
Ps.  cii.  1.  in  the  (Jr.  but  in  the  Eng.  ciii.  1.   Is.  x\i.  U.  Dan.  x. 


354  NOTES  ON 


CH.  X\ll. 


16.     We  have  this  expressioji  also  twice  in   the  Apocrypha 
Ecclus  xix.  26.    1  Mac.  iv.  48.       Of  all  which  I  shall  only  re- 
mark, in  general,  that  no  advocate  for  the  modern  interpretation 
of  cvToi  uf^m  in  the  Gospel,  has  produced  any  one  of  them  as 
giving  countenance  to  his  opinion,      Wh.  (who,  though  a  judi- 
cious critic,  sometimes  argues  more  like  a  party  than  a  judge), 
after  explaining  evroi  vtcav  e^tv  to  mean,  is  even  now  among  you 
and,  z*  come  unto  you;  adds,   "so  tvroc,  wyft/x,  and  ev  «A«-<y,  are 
"  frequently  used  in  the  O.  T."     Now,  the  truth  is,  that  a  <5a«»v 
does  frequently  occur  in  the  O.  T.  in  the  acceptation  mentioned, 
but  evT«?  uyMv  never,  either  in  that  or  in  any  other  acceptation  : 
nor  does  £vto5  ;?'«,»»  occur,  nor  £vro5  envrm,  nor  any  similar  expres- 
sion.     The  author  proceeds  to  give  examples  :  accordingly,  his 
examples  are  all  (as  was  unavoidable,  for  he  had  no  other)  of  ev 
vf^tv,  and  ev  ijuiv,  not  one  of  fvra?  uf^m,  or  of  any  similar  applica- 
tion of  this  preposition.     Strange,  indeed,  if  he  did  not  perceive 
that  a  single  example  of  this  use  of  the  preposition  evro?  (which 
use  he  had  affirmed  to  be  frequent),  was  more  to  his  purpose 
than  five  hundred  examples  of  the  other.     The  instances  of  the 
other  were,  indeed,  nothing  to  his  purpose  at  all.     The  import 
of  fv,  in  such  cases,  was  never  questioned;  and  his  proceeding  on 
the  supposition  that  those  phrases  were  equivalent,  was  what  lo- 
gicians call  a  petitioprincipii,  a  taking  for  granted  the  whole  mat- 
ter in  dispute.  Nay,  let  me  add,  the  frequency  of  the  occurrence 
of  fv  U;M,<v,  in  Scripture,  applied  to  a  purpose  to  which  £vt«5  J^^y  is 
never  applied,  notwithstanding  the  numerous  occasions,  makes 
against  his  argument,   instead  of   supporting  it,   as   it  renders 
it  very  improbable  that  the  two  phrases  were   understood  as 
equivalent, — But  to   come  from  the  external,  to   the  internal, 
evidence  ;  it  has  been  thought,  that  the  interpretation,  amongst 
you^  suits  better  the  circumstances  of  the  times.     The  Messiah 
was  already  come.     His  doctrine  was  begun  to  be  preached,  and 
converts,  though  not  very  numerous,  were  made.     This  may  be 
regarded  as  evidences  that  his  reign    was   already  commenced 
among  them.     But  in  what  sense,  it  may  be  asked,  could  his 
reign  or  kingdom  be  said  to  be  within  them  ?  It  is  true,  that  the 
la%vs  of  this  kingdom  were  intended  for  regulating  the  inward 
principles  of  the  heart,  as  well  as  outward  actions  of  the  life; 
but  is  it  not  rather  too  great  a  stretch  in  language,  to  talk  of 
God's  kingdom  being  within  us  ?  So,  I  acknowledge,  I  thought 


CH.  XVII.  S.  LUKE.  336 

once;  but  on  considering  the  great  latitude  wherein  the  phrase, 
>?'  fietcriXcix  ra  ©£«,  is  used  in  the  N.  T.  in  relation  sometimes  to 
the  epoch  of  the  dispensation,  sometimes  to  the  place,  sometimes 
for  the  divine  administration  itself,  sometimes  for  the  laws  and 
maxims  which  would  obtain  ;  I  began  to  think  differently  of  the 
use  of  the  word  in  this  passage.  The  Apostle  Paul  hath  said, 
Rom.  xiv.  17.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink^  but 
righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Now, 
these  qualities,  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  spiritual  joy,  if 
we  have  them  at  all,  must  be  within  us,  that  is,  in  the  heart  or 
soul.  If  so,  the  Apostle  has,  by  implication,  said  no  less  than 
is  reported  here  by  the  Evangelist,  as  having  been  said  by  oui* 
Lord,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  us.  Is  there  any  im, 
propriety  in  saying  that  God  reigns  in  the  hearts  of  his  people  ? 
If  not,  to  say,  the  reign  of  God  is  in  their  hearts,  or  within 
them,  is  the  same  thing,  a  little  varied  in  the  form  of  expression. 
Even  the  rendering  of  jixa-tXeix,  kingdom,  and  not  reign,  heigh- 
tens the  apparent  impropriety.  But  it  is  a  more  formidable  objec- 
tion against  the  common  version,  that  our  Lord's  discourse  was  at 
that  time  addressed  to  the  Pharisees  :  and  how  could  it  be  said  to 
men,  whose  hearts  were  so  alienated  from  God,  as  theirs  then 
were,  that  God  reigned  within  them  ?  This  difficulty  seems  to 
have  det<^rmined  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Dod.  To  this  I  answer,  that 
in  such  declarations,  conveying  general  truths,  the  personal  pro- 
noun is  not  to  be  strictly  interpreted.  It  is  not,  in  such  cases, 
you  the  individuals  spoken  to,  but  you  of  this  nation,  or  you  of 
the  human  species,  men  in  general.  In  this  way  we  understand 
the  words  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxx.  11,  12,  13,  14.  This  command, 
ment,  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  hidden  from 
thee,  neither  is  it  far  off.  It  is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouldst 
say,  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us, 
that  we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it  ?  Nor  is  it  beyond  the  sea,  thal_ 
thou  shouldst  say.  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring 
it  unto  us,  that  we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it  ?  But  the  word  is  very 
nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  mayest 
do  it.  This  is  not  to  be  considered  as  characterising  any  indi- 
vidual (for  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  pronoun  is,  throughout 
the  whole,  in  the  singular  number),  nor  even  the  whole  people 
addressed.     The  people  addressed  ha-d,  by  their  conduct,  shown 


356  NOTES  ON 


CH.  xvrir. 


too  oft'^n,  3nd  too  plainly,  that  the  coramandmenis  of  God  were 
reiiher  ii^  '■  i  ir  heart,  nor  in  their  mouth.  But  it  is  to  be  con. 
sidered  aj  Aplaiuina;  the  nature  of  the  divine  service  ;  for  it  re. 
mai'is  an  u  \;ha!)o;pable  truth,  that  it  is  an  essential  character  of 
the  servicf  which  God  requires  from  his  people,  that  his  word  be 
hViitt-nlly  ir»  their  heart.  The  same  sentiment  is  quoted  by  the 
Apostle,  Rom.  x.  6,  kc.  and  adapted  to  the  Gospel  dispensation. 
I  think  farther  with  Markland,  thatfur,??  J/x,!yv,  as  implying  an  in- 
ward and  spiritual  principle,  is  here  opposed  to  Trx^xru^iiTi^^  out- 
ward show  and  parade,  with  which  secular  dominion  is  commonly 
introduced. 

36.  The  whole  of  this  verse  is  wanting  in  many  MS!»i.  some  of 
them  of  gr?at  note.  It  is  not  found  in  some  of  the  early  editions, 
nor  in  the  Cop.  and  Eth.  versions.  But  both  the  Sy^  versions, 
also  the  Ara.  and  the  Vul.  have  it.  In  a  number  of  La.  MSS.  it 
is  wanting.  Some  critics  suppose  it  to  have  been  added  from 
Mt.  This  is  not  improbable.  However,  as  the  evidence  on  both 
sides  nearly  balances  each  other,  I  have  retained  it  in  the  texi. 
distinguishing  it  as  of  doubtful  authority. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

1.  He  also  showed  them  by  a  parable  that  thcjj  ought  to  per. 
sist  in  prajjer^  eXeyi  ^t  j^  TrxpcoQcX-ziv^  avretg  Trpoi  ro  anv  Travrere  7rfo= 
irtvxi^6oe.t.  E.  T.  And  he  spake  a  parable  unto  thcrn^  to  this  tnd, 
that  men  ought  always  to  pray.  The  construction  here  plainly 
shows,  that  the  word  to  be  supplied  before  the  infinitive  is  avTn^, 
"EXiyev  ctvrotc, — 7r.p^  to  (J«v  uvthi;.  The  words  are  a  continuation 
of  the  discourse  related  in  the  preceding  chapter,  which  is  here 
rather  inopportunely  interrupted  by  the  division  into  chapters. 
There  is,  in  these  words,  and  in  the  following  parable,  a  parti- 
cular reference  to  the  distress  and  trouble  they  were  soon  to  meet 
"with  from  their  persecutors,  which  would  render  the  duties  of 
prayer,  patience,  and  perseverance,  peculiarly  seasonable. 

^  Without  growing  weanj^  >t  f*.7j  cx.x.xjceiv.  E.  T.  arid  not  to 
faint.     At  the  time  when  the  common  version  was  made,  the 


CM.  xvin. 


S.  LUKE.  357 


Eng.  verb  to  faint  was  here  of  the  same  import  with  the  expres- 
sion  1  have  used.  But,  as  in  that  acceptation  it  is  now  become 
obsolete,  perspicuity  requires  a  change. 

3.  Do  me  justice  on  my  advei'sary^  exhioja-oy  ftc  «w»  t«  ccvriStxn 
fin.  E.  T.  Avenge  me  of  mine  adversary.  The  Eng.  verb  to 
avenge,  denotes  either  to  revenge  or  to  jmnish ;  the  last  espe- 
cially, when  God  is  spoken  of  as  the  avenger.  The  Gr.  verb 
sK^mu  signifies  also  to  judge  a  cause,  and  to  defend  the  injured 
judicially  from  the  injurious  person.  The  word  avenge,  there, 
fore,  does  not  exactly  hit  the  sense  of  the  original  in  v.  3.  al- 
though,  in  the  application  of  the  parable,  v.  7.  it  answers  better 
than  any  other  term.  The  literal  sense  is  so  manifest,  and  the 
connection  in  the  things  spoken  of  is  so  close,  that  the  change 
of  the  word  in  translating  does  not  hurt  perspicuity. 

7.  Will  he  linger  in  their  cause  ?  >^  uxK^oSvf^uv  eTs-''  xvtok;.  E, 
T.  Though  he  bear  long  with  them.  Vul.  Et  patientiam  habe- 
bit  in  illis  ?  Er.  Etiam  cum  patiens  fuerit  super  illis.  Zu. 
Etiamsi  longa  patientia  utatur  super  illis.  Cas.  Et  tarn  erit  in 
eos  difficilis  ?  Be.  Etiamsi  iram  differat  super  ipsis.  So  vari- 
ous are  the  ways  of  interpreting  this  short  clause.  Let  it  be  ob- 
served that  both  the  Al.  and  the  Cam.  MSS.  read  fA,oi,y.po6vf^H.  The 
Vul.  and  even  the  Sy .  appear  to  me  to  have  read  in  the  same  man- 
ner ;  so  also  have  some  of  the  Fathers.  But  the  version  given 
here  does  not  depend  on  that  reading.  The  omission  of  the  sub- 
stantive verb,  connected  with  the  participle,  is  common  in  the 
Oriental  idiom.  I  therefore  understand  yMx.po6vf^m  here  as  put 
for  fAXK^o6ijfMiv  i9M,  and  consequently  equivalent  to  fA.ot,Kpo6vn.ei. 
As  fcxxpoSviAH*  commonly  denotes  to  have  patience,  and  as  it 
sometimes  happens  that  patient  people  appear  slow  in  their  pro- 
ceedings, it  comes,  by  an  easy  transition,  to  signify  to  linger,  to 
delay.  In  this  sense  I  understand  it  here  with  Gro.  reading  this 
member  of  the  sentence,  as  well  as  the  preceding,  with  an  inter- 
rogation. The  words  quoted  by  him  from  the  Son  of  Sirach, 
Ecclus  xxxii.  18.  in  the  Gr.  but  in  the  E.  T,  which  follows  the 
Com.  and  the  Vul.  xxxv.  18.  appear  both  perspicuous  and  deci- 
sive, 'O  Kv^i(^  H  toj  (i^x^wn,  a^e  f^Tj  (AXx^oiviMta-u  ctt'  xvtoi?.  The 
first  clause  is  justly  interpreted  in  the  E.  T.  the  Lord  will  not 
he  alack  ;  but  the  second  is  rendered,  both  obscurely  and  inac- 
voT,.  IV.  45 


56S  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XVIII, 


curately,  neither  will  the  mightif  be  patient  towards  them.  Pro- 
perly thus,  neither  zcill  he  linger  in  their  cause.  The  pronoun 
their  refers  to  the  humble  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse 
Avhose  prayer  pierceth  the  clouds.  To  me  it  appears  very  pro- 
bable, considering  the  affinity  of  the  subject,  that  the  Evangelist 
had,  in  the  expression  he  employed,  an  allusion  to  the  words  of 
the  Jewish  sage. 

8,  Will  he  Jirid  this  belief  in  the  land?  apx  ev^ije-et  r^jv  w/r/y 
sTTi  TiK  yn^;  E.  T.  Shall  he  Jind  faith  on  the  earth  ?  There  is  a 
close  connection  in  all  that  our  Lord  says  on  any  topic  of  con. 
versation,  which  rarely  escapes  an  attentive  reader.  If,  in  this, 
as  is  very  probable,  he  refers  to  the  destruction  impending  over 
the  Jewish  nation,  as  the  judgment  of  heaven  for  their  rebellion 
against  God,  in  rejecting  and  murdering  the  Messiah,  and  in 
persecuting  his  adherents,  t;}v  ^r/s-iv  must  be  understood  to  mean 
this  belief.,  or  the  belief  of  the  particular  truth  he  had  been  in. 
culcating,  namely,  that  God  will,  in  due  time,  avenge'his  elect, 
and  signally  punish  their  oppressors  ;  and  t^v  -yyiv  must  mean  the 
land.,  to  wit,  Judea.  The  words  may  be  translated  either  way  ; 
but  the  latter  evidently  gives  them  a  more  definite  meaning,  and 
unites  them  more  closely  with  those  which  preceded. 

9.  Example.,  ^ct^x(^e>^v.     Mt,  xiii.  3.  N. 

11.  The  Pharisee.,  standing  hij  himself.,  prayed  thus.,  0  ^x^io-^ 
cti®^  rot&m  TT^®^  cxvTev  TxvTot  TT^ainjv^eTo.  E.  T.  The  Pharisee 
stood  and  prayed  thus  with  himself.  Our  translators  have  con. 
sidered  the  words  ^f©-  exvrov  as  connected  with  -^rpotrnvpf^ero,  in 
which  case  they  are  a  mere  pleonasm.  I  have  preferred  the  man- 
ner of  Dod.  and  others,  who  join  them  to  s-«^  « ;  for  in  this  way 
they  are  characteristical  of  the  sect,  who  always  affected  to  dread 
pollution  from  the  touch  of  those  whom  they  considered  as  their 
inferiors  in  piety. 

13.  At  a  distance,  {.lolk^oB-iv.  Mt.  viii.  30. 

14.  Than  the  other,  s;  bkciv®^.  There  is  a  considerable  diver. 
-ity  of  reading  on  this  clause.  A  few  copies  have  vxf  ocum,  a 
great  number  t,  yxp  fxf/v®-,  and  others  still  differently.  But  the 
meaning  is  the  same  in  all 


c    LUKE  3^^ 

25.  Pass  through,  e,<r,xeei..  Vnl  Transtre.  I  Ime  here,  with 
the  Eng.  translators,  preferred  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  to  that 
of  the  common  Gr.  The  MSS.  however,  are  not  unanimous. 
The  Al.  Cam.  and  a  few  others,  read  ^/.AOn».  Agreeable  to  this 
is  the  version,  not  only  of  the  Vul.  but  of  the  Go.  Sax.  second 
Sy.  and  Eth.  Mt.  xix.  24.     N.  g? 

31.  All  that  the  prophets  have  wriiten  shall  be  accomplished 
on  the  son  of  man.  1eX,<r%^y,rM  -Trxvrct  ru,  y,y^<c^iA.tm,  hxrm  ^po- 
<p,r^y,  re.  J<^  r«  «v-^^«-«.  E.  T.  All  (hinf^s  that  are  written  by 
the  prophets,  concerning  the  son  of  man,  shall  be  accomplished, 
which  is  literally  from  the  Vul.  Consummabuntur  omma  qiicp 
scripta  sunt  per  prophetas  de  fdio  hominis.  This  version  must 
have  arisen  from  a  ditTerent  reading.  Accordingly  the  Cam.  and 
two  or  three  MSS.  of  no  account,  for  r»  mo>  read  x^^*  m  uia. 
Agreeable  to  this  also  is  the  rendering  of  both  the  Sy.  and  the 
reading  of  some  early  editions.  But  this  is  not  a  sufficient  rea. 
son  for  rejecting  the  common  reading,  especially  when  the  sense 
conveyed  by  it,  is  equally  good.  Yet  it  has  been  deserted  by 
most  modern  interpreters.  Castalio  has  indeed  adopted  it. 
Filio  hominis  accident  plane  omnia  nua;  sunt  a  vatibus  scrtpta. 
With  this  also  agree  the  G.  E.  and  Wes.  Add  to  these  Wa.  in 
his  New  Translations  lately  published. 

35.  When  he  came  near  Jericho,  tv  ra  eyyt^Biv  avroy  m  h^'X'^- 
L.  CI  and  Beau.  Comme  il  etoit  pres  de  Jcrico.  This  manner 
is  likewise  adopted  by  most  of  the  late  Eng.  translators.  What 
recommends  it  is  the  consideration  that  thereby  an  apparent  con- 
tradiction in  the  Evangelists  is  avoided;  Mt.  and  Mr.  having 
mentioned  this  miracle,  as  performed  by  our  Lord,  after  he  left 
Jericho.  Gro.  has  remarked,  that  eyv^i'v  means  to  be  near,  as 
well  as  to  come  near,  which  is  true.  But  it  is  not  less  true,  that 
in  this  acceptation,  it  is  construed  with  the  dative.  When 
followed  by  the  preposition  en,  it  always  denotes,  if  I  mistake 
not,  to  approach.  A  most  extraordinary  solution  is  given  from 
Markland  [Bowyer's  Conjectures],  who  supposes  an  ellipsis, 
which  he  supplies  thus,  £v  t«  eyyi^uv  »vtov  ni  \_supplc  ' le^oo-oXvf^-j, 
«(«]  Is?';e«-  I<"  so^  the  translation  here  given  is  unexceptionable  ; 
for  the  ellipsis  is  just  as  easily  supplied  in  Eng.  as  in  Gr.  When 
they  came  near  [meaning  Jerusalem,  being  at]  Jericho.  A  li- 
berty so  unbounded  is  not  more  agreeable  to  the  Gr,  idiom  than 


360  NOTES  ON  ch  xixv 

t6  the  Eng.  It  is  alike  repugnant  to  tlie  idiom  of  every  tongue, 
to  authorise  an  interpreter  to  make  a  writer  say  what  he  pleases. 
Such  licences  are  subversive  of  all  grammar  and  syntax. 


m 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


2.  And  chief  of  the  publicans,  >^  rtur®-  )}v  a,^y^iTiXun,i.  E.  T. 
Which  was  the  chief  among  the  publicans.  This  seems  to  imply, 
that  he  was  the  chief  of  the  whole  order  in  Palestine.  Had  this 
been  the  case,  the  name  would  have,  most  probably,  been  attend, 
ed  with  the  article.  Thus  it  is  always  said  d  et^^etepvi  when  the 
high  priest  is  spoken  of.  In  like  manner,  when  there  is  in  the 
nation  but  one  of  any  particular  office  or  dignity,  as  o  ficco-iXeviy 
the  king,  o  tiytfiMv,  the  procurator,  o  xvivTrur^,  the  proconsul. 
To  have  translated  the  word  a  chief  publican,  would  have  been, 
on  the  contrary,  saying  too  little.  This  expression  does  not  ne- 
cessarily imply  authority,  or  even  that  there  were  not,  in  the  same 
place,  some  on  a  footing  with  him.  Now,  if  the  Evangelist  had 
meant  to  say  no  more  than  this,  I  think  his  expression  would 
have  been  'cig  rm  ecpj(^iT£>^avav,  as  we  find,  in  the  same  way,  e<«  rm 
apx,'°'vvx'ya'yuv  used,  Mr.  V.  22.  Whereas,  the  manner  in  which 
L.  mentions  the  circumstance  of  office  here,  >^  xvt@^  y>v  ec^^ireXa. 
V)}?,  seems  to  show  that,  in  the  station  he  possessed,  he  was  sin- 
gle in  that  place,  and  consequently  that  he  was  chief  of  the  pub. 
licans  of  the  city  or  district ;  for,  let  it  be  observed  that,  though 
the  Gr.  article  renders  the  noun  to  which  it  is  prefixed  perfectly 
definite,  the  want  of  it  does  not  render  a  noun  so  decisively  inde- 
finite, as  the  indefinite  article  does  in  modern  languages. 

8.  If  in  aught  I  have  tcronged  any  man,  u  rtv®^  rt  e<rvM(petv~ 
r„a-x.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  16. 

9.  Jesus  said  concerning  him,  cittb  w^ ©^  uvtov  o  Ufs-m.  E.  T. 
Jesus  said  unto  him.  The  thing  said  shows  clearly,  that  our  Lord 
spoke,  not  to  Zaccheus,  but  to  the  people  concerning  Zaccheus. 
He  is  mentioned  in  the  third  person,  xocSoTt  >^  xvr(^,  inasmuch  as 
he  also.     Of  this  mode  of  expression  we  have  another  example 


cii.  xtx.  S.  LUKE.  361 

in  the  very  next  chapter,  v.  19.  eymrxv  on  Trp^  avrm  r))v  TrufxtQi- 
A;jv  TxvTYi))  «5rf .  E.  T.  They  perceived  that  he  had  spoken  this 
parable  against  them.  It  is  from  the  import  of  the  parable  itself 
that  Trpeg  xvTm  is  rendered  against  them  y  for,  had  it  been  in  their 
favour,  there  would  have  been  no  impropriety  in  saying  ^r^as 
ctvTui;  to  denote  concerning  them ^  or  in  relation  to  them.  Another 
example  we  have,  Heb.  i.  7.  Trpoi  f^iv  mc,  xyyeXni  Ar/a.  E.  T.  Of 
the  angels  he  saith. 

12.  To  procure  for  himself  the  royalty,  XxQm  Iuvtu  (iaFiXuav. 
E.  T.  To  receive  for  himself  a  kingdom.  To  me  it  is  manifest 
that  ^xa-tXau  here  signifies  royalty,  that  is,  royal  power  and  dig- 
nity. For  that  it  was  not  a  difl'erent  kingdom  from  that  wherein 
he  lived,  as  the  common  version  implies,  is  evident  from  v.  14. 
It  is  equally  so,  that  there  is  in  this  circumstance  an  allusion  to 
what  was  well  known  to  his  hearers,  the  way  in  which  Archelaus, 
and  even  Herod  himself,  had  obtained  their  rank  and  authority 
in  Judea,  by  favour  of  the  Romans.  When  this  reference  to  the 
history  of  the  times  is  kept  in  view,  and  ^xtiXhx  understood  to 
denote  royal  power  and  dignity,  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  a 
difficulty  in  the  story.  In  any  other  explanation,  the  expounder, 
in  order  to  remove  inconsistencies,  is  obliged  to  suppose  so  many 
circumstances  not  related,  or  even  hinted,  by  the  Evangelist, 
that  the  latter  is,  to  say  the  least,  made  appear  a  very  inaccurate 
narrator.  The  great  latitude  in  which  the  word  j3<es-<A««  is  used 
in  the  Gospel,  will  appear  from  several  considerations,  particu- 
larly from  its  being  employed  in  ushering  in  a  great  number  of 
our  Lord's  parables,  wherein  the  subjects  illustrated  are  verv 
different  from  one  another.     Diss.  V.  P.  I.  §  7. 

I  13.  Having  called  ten  of  his  servants,  xxXerxi  h  hy.x  .JaAs^ 
ixvm.  E.  T.  He  called  his  ten  servants.  This  implies  that  he 
had  neither  more  nor  fewer  than  ten  servants,  who  were  all  call- 
ed. Had  this  been  our  Lord's  meaning,  the  expression  must^ 
have  been  xaAes-a?  JV  rm  Jckx  hxag  ixvTu.  Thus  Mt.  x.  1.  w^as-. 
jiflsAfc-sefCfv©-  T«5  Surtax  fAx.%Txi  xvth.  Having  called  to  him  his 
fzvelve  disciples.  So  also  Mt.  xi.  1.  L.  ix.  1.  The  article  is 
never  wanting  while  the  number  is  complete. 
~  Pounds.     Diss.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

22.  Malignant,  mvTjpe.     Mt.  xxv.  26. 

26.  To  every  one  xcho  hath.,  more  shall  be  given,  Uxvti  rw 


362  NOTES  ON  ch.  xx; 

e^ovTi  $o.%o-Breci.  Vul.  Omni  habenti  dabitur^  et  abundabit.  For 
the  two  last  words  the  La.  has  the  sanction  of  five  MSS.  of  no 
name,  which  read  i^  'rcpia-s-iv^i-ija-erxiy  but  of  no  version  whatever. 

32.  Found  evert/  thing  as  he  had  told  them,  evpov  Kxiu?  «7r£v 
uvT-^ii.  Vul.  Invent-runt,  sicut  dixit  iliis  stantem  pullmn.  Agree- 
ably to  this  a  few  MSS.  but  none  of  any  note,  read  after  avroii. 
WuToc  rov  jr^Aov.  The  second  Sy.  the  Sax.  and  the  Arm.  versions 
are  also  conformable  to  the  Vul. 

38.   In  the  highest  heaven.     Ch.  ii.   14.  N. 

42.  0  that  thou  hadst  considered,  on  «  tyv»5  «.ea  cv.     Ch.  xii. 

49.  N. 

43.  IVill  surround  thee  with  a  rampart,  Tre^i^xXacri  ^x^xkx,  (roi, 
E.  T.  Shall  cast  a  trench  about  thee.  Xaf!«|  does  not  occur  in 
any  other  place  of  the  N.  T. ;  but  in  some  places  wherein  it  oc» 
curs  in  the  Sep.  it  has  evidently  the  sense  I  have  here  given  it. 
Indeed  a  rampart,  or  mound  of  earth,  was  always  accompanied 
with  a  trench  or  ditch,  out  of  which  was  dug  the  earth  necessary 
for  raising  the  rampart.  Some  expositors  have  clearly  shown, 
that  this  is  a  common  meaning  of  the  word  in  Gr.  authors.  Itt? 
perfect  conformity  to  the  account  of  that  transaction,  given  by 
the  Jewish  historian,  is  an  additional  argument  in  its  favour. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

1.   Teaching —  and  publishing  the  good  tidings—-  h^'a.irKan(§)- 

— )^   cvxyyiXi!^e,y.iVii Diss.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 

13.  Sureli),  iTUi.  E.  T.  It  may  be.  Though  the  latter  may 
be  thought  the  more  common  signification,  the  former  suits  bet- 
ter the  genius  of  the  parable,  and  the  parallel  passages.  Besides, 
the  word  has  often  that  signification  in  profane  authors.  It  is 
found  but  once  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy,  1  Sam.  xxv.  21. 
•where  it  is  evidently  used  in  this  sense,  answering  to  the  Heb. 
IN  ach,  profecto,  and  rendered  in  the  E.  T.  surely.  It  occurs 
in  no  other  place  of  the  N.  T. 

35.  Who  shall  be  honoured  to  share  in  the  resurrection,  li 
may  be  remarked  in  passing,  that  our  LordJ  agreeably  to  the 


i  H.  XXI.  S.  LUKE.  363 

Jewish  style  of  that  period,  calls  that  only  the  resurrection, 
which  is  a  resurrection  to  glory. 


CHAPTER   XXI. 

8.  Sat/ing,  I  am  the  person  ;  and  the  time  approacheth,  x^ym- 
T£5,  oTi  tyo)  «jM,r  Xj^  0  x,cc,ip(^  r.yyiKi.  The  srcond  clause,  f^  c  K<iiip(^ 
'^r/yix^e,  and  the  time  approacheth,  is  capable  of  being  understood 
as  the  words  either  of  the  false  messiahs  that  would  arise,  or  of 
our  Lord  himself.  In  the  former  case,  the  copulative  s^  connects 
this  clause  with  that  immediately  preceding,  to  wit,  eyu  Hf^i ;  in 
the  latter,  the  connection  is  made  with  the  verb  eXtvtrovTctt.  For. 
mer  expositors  have,  I  think,  in  general,  adopted  the  latter  mode 
of  interpreting,  making  these  the  words  of  our  Lord.  Of  this 
number  is  Gro.  who  considers  the  second  clause  as  equivalent  to 
what  is  said,  Mt.  xxiv.  34.  Mr.  xiii.  30.  This  generation  shall 
not  pass  till  all  these  things  be  fulfilled.  Most  translators  also 
have  favoured  this  manner.  Er.  says,  Multi  venieiit  dicentes  se 
esse  Christum  ;  et  tempiis  instat.  Had  he  understood  both  clauses 
as  the  words  of  the  impostors,  he  would  have  said  instare.  Cas. 
to  the  same  purpose,  Qui  se  eum  esse  dicant ;  et  quidem  tempus 
instat.  Such  foreign  translations  as  do  not  preserve  the  ambi- 
guity of  the  original,  seem  all  to  approve  the  same  explanation. 
Some  late  Eng,  commentators  have  favoured  the  other,  and  have 
been  followed  by  some  interpreters,  Dod.  and  Wes.  in  particu- 
lar. Yet,  in  their  translations  themselves,  this  does  not  appear, 
unlesiS  from  the  pointing,  or  the  notes.  As  very  plausible  things 
may  be  said  on  each  side  of  the  question,  and  as  there  does  not 
appeat  any  thing  in  the  context,  that  can  be  accounted  decisive, 
I  consider  this  as  one  of  those  ambiguities  which  translators 
ought,  if  possible,  to  preserve.  Most  of  them,  indeed,  have''^ 
either  accidentally  or  intentionally  done  so.  Of  this  number  is 
the  Vul.  Dicentes  quia  ego  sum,  et  tempus  appropinquavit.  And 
the  Zu.  Dicentes,  Ego  sum  Christus,  et  tempus  instat.  As  also 
the  E.  T.  Saying,  I  am  Christ,  and  the  time  drazceth  near. 
Bishop  Pearce  seems  to  think  that  the  words  in  the  following 
verse,  ax.  evdea^^  to  rix(^,  are  said  in  direct  contradiction  to  the 
clause,  9  y.ciio(^  loyyiyAs  and,  consequently,  show  this  to  be  the 


364  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxi. 

assertion  of  the  seducers.  If  our  Lord  had  employed  o  xxtp®^  in 
this  verse,  instead  of  to  teA®-,  I  should  have  thought  the  argu- 
ment very  strong ;  but,  as  it  stands,  it  has  no  weight  at  all.  I 
know  no  interpreter  who  gives  the  same  import  to  «««p®-,  in  the 
eighth  verse,  and  to  nx©^  in  the  ninth.  And  if  they  refer  to  dif- 
ferent events,  the  one  cannot  be  in  opposition  to  the  other. 

15.  To  refute,  mrnTrHK  E.  T.  To  gainsay.  The  import 
of  the  declaration  is  well  expressed  by  Grotius,  "  Cui  nihil  con. 
•'  tradici  possit,  quod  veri  habeat  speciem."  That  their  adver- 
saries  did  actually  gainsay,  or  contradict  them,  we  have  from 
the  same  authority.  Acts,  xiii.  45.  xxviii.  19.  22.  It  deserves, 
however,  to  be  remarked,  that  the  term  in  all  these  places  is  dif- 
ferent from  that  used  here.  It  is  xvTiXiynv  which,  in  the  idiom 
of  the  sacred  writers,  is  evidently  not  synonymous. 

19.  Save  yourselves  by  your  perseverance,  ev  rn  uTauevii  CfM)v 
KT^a-eic-Se  rx^  -^v^xi  t)|t*<yv.    E.  T.  In  your  patience  possess  ye  your 
souls.     For  the  proper  import  of  the  word  uTrofMVii,  see  ch.  viii. 
15.  N.     KT«o(tt«e*  signifies  not  only  I  possess,  but  /  acquire,  and 
even  I  preserve  what  I  have  acquired ;  for  it  is  only  thus  I  con- 
tinue to  possess  it.     Such  phrases  as  «<  -^^vx^  vy.uv  were  shown, 
ch.  xiv.  26.  N.  to  serve,  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  for  the  recipro- 
cal pronoun.     The  sentence  is,  therefore,  but  another  manner 
of  expressing  the  same  sense,  which  Mt.  has  delivered  (ch.  x. 
22.)  in  these  words — The  man  who  persevereth  to  the  end,  shall 
he  saved,  o  uTroy.wai;  «?  TfA®-,  ST©-  a-uh'rerxi.     That  the  words 
may  have  a  relation  to  a  temporal,  as  well  as  to  eternal,  salva- 
tion, is  not  to  be  doubted  ;  but  as  the  whole  discourse  is  a  pro- 
phecy,  a  translator  ought  not,  from  the  lights  afforded  by  the 
fulfilment,  to  attempt  rendering  it  more  explicit  than  it  must 
have  appeared  to  the  hearers  at  the  time.     I  shall  only  add,  in 
passing,  that  there  is  a  small  deviation  from  the  common,  in  the 
reading  of  the  Vul.  and  the  Sy.  versions,  where  we  find  the  fu- 
ture of  the  indicative  instead  of  the  imperative  ;  in  conformity  to 
which,  three  or  four  MSS.  have  tcTurrea-S-e  instead  of  x.Tno-xrS'e.  But 
this  makes  no  alteration  in  the  sense.     It  may  be  even  reason- 
ably questioned,  whether  there  has  been  any  difference  in  the 
Gr.  copies  used  by  those  translators.      The  future  in  Heb.  is 
often  no  other  than  a  more  solemn  expression  of  the  imperative : 


tiU.  KXI. 


S.  LUKE.  3.65 


and,  therefore,  if  I  had  not  had  occasion  to  make  other  remarks 
on  the  verse,  I  should  have  thought  this  too  slight  a  difl'erence 
to  be  taken  notice  of  here. 

21.  Let  those  in  the  city  make  their  escape^  ot  bv  /n-ee-a  uvtra 
ix;iC6)petTuirxv.  E.  T.  Let  them  who  are  in  the  midst  of  it  depart 
out.  AvTTii  may  here,  very  naturally,  be  thought  at  first  to  re- 
fer to  Wrt/«,  mentioned  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse.  But 
the  sense  and  connection  evidently  show,  that  it  relates  to 
'lepacra^Krif^,  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse.  The  next  mem- 
ber of  the  sentence  is  a  confirmation  of  this — kxi  oi  iv  txi^  x"' 
pxii,  jMj)  eKre^^eo-S-uToiv  eii  xvTtiv.  Here  the  fields  could  not  be  con- 
trasted to  Jerusalem,  the  metropolis  ;  the  contrast  of  town  and 
country  is  familiar  in  every  language.  I  do  not  urge  that  this 
suits  better  the  events  which  soon  followed  :  for  if  there  were  not 
ground  for  this  interpretation  from  the  context  and  the  parallel 
passages  in  the  other  Gospels,  it  would  be  hazardous  to  deter- 
mine what  the  inspired  author  has  said,  from  what  a  translator 
may  fancy  he  ought  to  have  said,  that  the  prediction  might  tally 
with  the  accomplishment.  In  this  way  of  expounding,  too  much 
gcope  is  given  to  imagination,  perhaps  to  rooted  prejudices  and 
mere  partiality. 

23.  fVoe  unto  the  women  with  child.     Ch.  vi.  24,  25,  26.  N. 

25.  Upon  the  earth,  (tti  tsj?  7,55.  Some  late  expositors  think 
it  ought  to  be  rendered,  upon  the  land,  considering  the  prophecy 
as  relating  solely  to  Judea.  The  words,  as  they  stand, may,  no 
doubt,  be  translated  either  way.  I  have  preferred  that  of  the 
common  version,  for  the  following  reasons:  First,  though  what 
preceded  seems  peculiarly  to  concern  the  Jews,  what  follows  ap- 
pears to  have  a  more  extensive  object,  and  to  relate  to  the  na- 
tions, and  the  habitable  earth  in  general.  There  we  hear  of  w. 
vox.il  eSvm,  and  of  the  things  tve^x'^fjuvm  nj  oixufcsvii ;  not  to  mention 
what  immediately  follows,  to  wit,  that  the  son  of  man  shall  be 
seen  coming  on  a  cloud,  with  great  glory  and  power.  Nor  is  it 
at  all  probable  that,  by  the  term  eSvav,  nations,  used  thrice  in  the 
preceding  verse,  manifestly  for  Gentiles,  are  meant  in  this  verse 
only  Jews  and  Samaritans.  2dly,  The  prediction  which  the  verse 
under  examination  introduces,  is  accurately  distinguished  by  the 
historian,  as  not  commencing  till  after  the  completion  of  the  for- 
mer.    It  was  not  till  after  the  calamities  which  were  to  befal  tlie 

VOL.    IT.  46 


NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXII- 


Jews,  sliould  be  ended ;  after  their  capital  and  temple,  their  last 
resourse,  should  be  invested  and  taken,  and  the  wretched  inha- 
bitants destroyed,  or  carried  captive  into  all  nations;  after  Je- 
rusalem should  be  trodden  by  the  Gentiles  ;  nay,  and  after  the 
triumph  of  the  Gentiles  should  be  brought  to  a  period;  that  the 
prophecy  contained  in  this  and  the  two  subsequent  verses,  should 
bei^in  to  take  effect.  The  judicious  reader,  to  be  convinced  of 
this,  needs  only  give  the  passage  an  attentive  perusal. 

28.   Begin  to  be  fulfilled,  Apxof^evmyiveTB-xi.     Mr.  v.  17.  N. 

30.  IVhen  ye  observe  them  shooting  forth,  'otxv  Trpo^aXaTiv  nS'v, 
^XeTTovTei.  Vul.  Cum  producuntjiim  ex  se  fructum.  This  addi- 
tion oi fructum  is  not  favoured  by  any  other  version  except  the 
Sqx.  or  even  by  any  MS.  except  the  Cam.  which  has  rav  xm^tfo^ 
MVTay, 


CHAPTER,  XXir. 

25.  Thet/  who  oppress  them  are  stijled  benefactors,  ot  s'^htiu-' 
^evrti  avruv  evepyiTstt  kxXuvtcii.  E.  T.  They  zcho  exercise  authori. 
ty  upon  them  are  called  benefactors.  The  verb  £|»(r<i«^Hv,  in  its 
common  acceptation,  does  not  mean  simply  to  rule,  or  govern, 
Trotf^dtfieiv.  ctpjx^itv,  ^yifMvtvBit,  or  KV^e^vaeiv,  but  to  rule  with  rigour 
and  oppression,  as  a  despot  rules  his  slaves.  It  is,  in  this  sense, 
used  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  1  Cor.  vi.  12.  hk  tyu  i^Ha-ixr^'/iO-o^M 
vTTo  Tivoi.  E.  T.  T  zeill  not  be  brought  under  the  pozcer  of  any  ; 
that  is,  '  How  indifferent  soever  in  themselves  the  particular 
'  gratirications  may  be  ;'  for  it  is  of  this  kind  of  spiritual  subject 
tion  be  is  speaking,  '  I  will  not  allow  myself  to  be  enslaved  by 
'  any  appetite,'  It  seems  to  be  our  Lord's  view,  in  these  in- 
structions, not  only  to  check,  in  his  Apostle,  all  ambition  of 
;power,  every  thing  which  savoured  of  a  desire  of  superiority  and 
dominion  over  their  brethren,  but  also  to  restrain  that  species  of 
vanity  which  is  near  a-kin  to  it,  theatTectation  of  distinction  from 
titles  of  respect  and  dignity.  Against  this  vice  particularly,  the 
clause  under  consideration  seems  to  be  levelled.  The  reflection 
naturally  suggested  by  it  is.  How  little  are  any  the  most  pom. 
pous  epithets  which,  men  can  bestow,  worthy  the  regard  of  a  good 
man,  who  observes  how  vilely,  through  servility  and  flattery, 
they  are  sometimes  prostituted  to  the  most  undeserving.     That 


-CH.  XXII.  S.  LUKE.  367 

there  is  an  allusion  to  the  titles  much  affected  by  monarchs  and 
conquerors  in  those  ages,  amongst  which,  benefactor^  euergetes, 
was  one,  there  can  be  little  doubt.  To  the  same  purpose,  are 
those  instructions  wherein  he  prohibits  their  calling  any  man  up- 
on the  earth  their  father  orteacher  in  t'Jngs  divine,  or  assuming 
to  themselves  the  title  of  rabbi  or  leader. 

29,  30.  And  I  grant  unto  you  to  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in 
my  kingdom  (forasmuch  as  my  Father  hath  granted  me  a  king' 
domj^  and  to  sit — 5c«y<w  oixTiSif^ott  'vf^iv,  Kx6e>>i  ^ledero  fMi  o  vcirvjp  /^a^ 

XXI  y.»6iiT}}TB-£ — ,  E.  T.  And  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  as 
my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me  ;  that  y:  may  eat  and  drink 
at  my  table  in  my  kingdom,  and  sit — .  There  is  evidently  an 
indistinctness  in  this  version,  which  is  not  warranted  by  the  ori- 
ginal. At  first,  the  grant  to  the  disciples  appears  to  be  very  dif- 
ferent from  what,  by  the  explanation  subjoined,  it  is  afterwards 
found  to  be.  The  first  is  a  kingdom,  the  second,  that  ye  may 
eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom.  See  Mt.  xxvi.  29.  ^N. 
'BxtrtXuctv  is  rendered  as  if  it  were  governed  by  hxriGsf^xt,  and  not 
as  it  is,  both  in  reality,  and  to  appearance,  by  ^leOtro.  Make  but 
a  small  alteration  in  the  pointing,  remove  the  comma  after  /tt», 
and  place  it  after  fixTiP^uxv,  and  nothing  can  be  clearer  or  more 
explicit  than  the  sentence.  I  have,  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity, 
made  an  alteration  on  the  arrangement  of  the  words,  but  not 
greater  than  that  made  by  our  translators,  which  has  the  contra. 
xy  effect,  and  involves  the  sentence  in  obscurity. 

31.  Hath  obtained  permission.  E^tirtiTxre.  Though  with  most 
interpreters,  I  said  first  requested  permission,  the  word  will  bear, 
and  the  sense  requires  that  it  be  rendered  obtained. — Their  dan- 
ger arose  chiefly,  not  from  what  Satan  requested,  but  from  what 
God  permitted. 

-  You  [«/^]  'vfA,xi;.  The  plural  pronoun  shows  plainly  that 
this  was  spoken  of  all  the  apostles,  especially  as  we  find  it  con- 
trasted to  the  singular  ^epi  tra,  directed  to  Peter  in  the  same  sen- 
tence. But  this  does  not  sufficiently  appear  in  Eng.  or  any  lan- 
guage wherein  it  is  customary  to  address  a  single  person  in  the 
plural.  I  have  thereforp  to  remove  ambiguity,  supplied  tlie 
word  [rt/^]. 


368  NOTES  ON  ch.  xtn. 

32.  When  thou  hast  recovered  thyself ,  tv  cvis-^c-^^oci.  E.  T. 
IVhen  thou  art  converted.  There  is  precisely  the  same  reason 
against  rendering  £7n^^e4'«,i,  in  this  place,  converted,  which  there 
is  against  rendering  rpottptin,  Mt.  xviii.  3.  in  the  same  way.  See 
the  note  on  that  verse. 

36.  Let  him  zvho  hath  no  szoord,  sell  his  mantle,  and  buy  one 
-^-  0  (M)  ^X^yv,  w»A}j5-o«r<y  to  it^MTtov  uvra,  j^  «yef«5*«T«  f^x^ocie^cvt .  A 
great  number  of  MSS.  and  some  of  note,  have  the  two  verbs  in 
the  future,  7ruXr,o-ii  and  «yof(«o-£<,  instead  of  the  imperative.  In 
this  way,  it  is  also  read  in  some  of  the  oldest  editions.  I  think, 
however,  that  there  is  no  occasion  here  to  desert  the  common 
reading.  The  sense  in  such  prophetical  speeches  is  the  same, 
either  way  rendered.  In  the  animated  language  of  the  Prophets, 
their  predictions  are  often  announced  under  the  form  of  com- 
mands. The  Prophet  Isaiah,  in  the  sublime  prediction  he  has 
given  us  of  the  fate  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  thus  foretells  the  de- 
struction of  his  family  (xiv.  2! .)  :  Prepare  slaughter  for  his  chil- 
dren, for  the  iniqiiitij  of  their  fathers,  that  they  do  not  rise,  nor 
possess  the  laiid.  Yet  the  instruments  by  which  Providence  in- 
tended to  effect  the  extirpation  of  the  tyrant's  family,  were  none 
of  those  to  whom  the  prophecy  was  announced.  The  Prophet  Jere- 
miah, in  like  manner,  foretells  the  approaching  destruction  of  the 
children  of  Zion,  by  exhibiting  God  as  thus  addressing  the  people 
(ix  17,  18.):  Call  for  the  mourning  wometi,  that  they  may 
come  :  and  send  for  cunning  zcomen  :  and  let  them  7nake  haste^ 
and  take  up  a  wailing  for  us,  that  our  eyes  may  run  dozon  with 
tears,  and  our  eyelids  gush  out  with  waters.  There  matter  of 
sorrow  is  predicted,  by  commanding  the  common  attendants  on 
mourning  and  lamentation  to  be  gotten  in  readiness  ;  here  warn- 
ing is  given  of  the  most  imminent  dangers,  by  orders  to  make  the 
customary  preparation  against  violence,  and  to  account  a  weapon 
more  necessary  than  a  garment.  In  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel 
(xxxix.  17,  18, 19.),  and  in  the  Apocalypse  (xix.  17,  18.),  so  far 
is  this  allegoric  spirit  carried,  that  we  find  orders  given  to  brute 
animals  to  do  what  the  Prophet  means  only  to  foretell  us  they 
will  do.  Indeed,  this  is  so  much  in  the  vivid  manner  of  scrip* 
tural  prophecy,  that  I  am  astonished  that  a  man  of  Bishop 
Pearce's  abilities  should  have  been  so  puzzled  to  reconcile  this 
clause  to  our  Saviour's  intention  of  yielding  without  resistance, 
that,   rather   than    admit  it,  he   would  recur  to  an  expedient^ 


CH.  xxn.  S.  LUKE.  369 

>.hose  tendency  is  but  loo  evidently  to  render  Scripture  preca. 
rious  and  uncertain. 

38    Hrre  are  tzoo  swords^lt  is  enough.     The  remark  here 
made  by  the  disciples,  and  our  Lord's  answer,  show  manifestly 
two  things;  the  first  is,  that  his  meaning  was  not  perfectly  com. 
prehended  bv  them  ;  the  second,  that  he  did  not  thiijk  it  necessa. 
ry  at  that  time,  to  open  the  matter  further  to  them.  The.r  remark 
evinces  that  they  understood  him  literally  ;  and  it  is,  by  conse- 
quence, a  confirmation  (if  a  confirmation  were  needed)  of  the 
common  reading  of  verse  36.     By  his  answer,  'U^v.v   .r-,  Uis 
enough  ;  though  he  declined  attempting  to  undeceive  them  by 
entering  further  into  the  subject,  he  signified,  with   sufficient 
plainness,  to  those  who  should  reflect  on  what  he  said,  that  arms 
were  not  the  resource  they  ought  to  think  of.     For  what  were 
two  swords  against  all  the  ruling  powers  of  the  nation  ?  The  im. 
port  of  the  proverbial  expression  here  used  by  our  Lord    is 
therefore,  this,  '  We  need  no  more;'  which  does  not  imply  that 
they  really  needed,  or  would  use,  those  they  had. 

.51.  Let  this  suffice,  ..r.  i.^  r.r«.     E.  T.  Sufferje  thus  far. 
This  version  is  obscure,  and  susceptible  of  very  d.fterent  inter- 
pretations.     All  antiquity  seems  agreed  in  understanding  our 
Lord's  expression  as  a  check  to  his  disciples,  by  intimating  tha 
they  were  not  to  proceed  further  in  the  way  of  resistance  ;  as  it 
was  not  to  such  methods  of  defence  that  he  chose  to  recur. 
What  is  recorded  by  the  other  Evangelists  ^Mt.  xxvi.  52    53. 
J  xviii    11.),  as  likewise  said  on  the  occasion,  strongly  confirms 
this  explanation.  Another,  indeed,  has  been  suggested;  namely, 
that  the  words  were  spoken  to  the  soldiers,  who  are  supposed 
before  now,  to  have  seized  his  person  ;  and  that  our  Lord  asked 
of  them,  that  they  would  grant  him  liberty  to  go  to  the  man 
.vhose  ear  had  been  cut  off,  that  he  might  cure  him  ;  the  only  .flt 
stance  wherein  Jesus  needed  the  permission,  or  the  aid,  of  any 
man,  in  working  a  miracle.  An  explanation  this,  every  way  excep. 
tionable  ;  but  it  is  sufficient  here  to  take  notice,  that  it  ,s  totally 
destitute  of  evidence.     Eisner,  who  favours  this  interpretatmn 
after  giving  what  he  takes  to  be  the  sense,  in  a  paraphrastical 
cxplanatio;,  quotes,  by  way  of  evidence,  two  passages  from  the 

same  author,  in  order  to  prove what  was  never  questioned 

*     by  any  body,  that  b;;,  followed  by  the  genitive,  sometimes  an- 


370  NOTES  ON 


eu.  XXII. 


swers  to  the  La.,  ad.  The  only  thing,  in  the  present  case,  which 
requires  proof,  is,  that  such  an  ellipsis,  made  by  the  suppres. 
sion  of  two  principal  words,  f^e  a^wv,  is  consistent  with  use  in 
the  language;  and  the  only  proof  is  precedents.  Would  sinite 
ad  istum,  in  La.  or,  which  is  equivalent,  suffer  to  him^  in 
Eng.  convey  that  sense  ?  Yet  nobody  will  deny,  that  sinite  me 
ire  ad  istum,  in  the  one  language,  and  suffer  me  to  go  to  hirn^ 
in  the  other,  clearly  express  it.  Just  so,  it  is  admitted,  that  ea.T£ 
s>i6eiv  ey.e  e&>?  t«ts  would  convey  that  sense,  though  exre  cug  tsth 
does  not.  The  extent  of  use  in  Gr.  is  learnt  only  from  examples, 
as  well  as  in  La.  in  Eng.  Now,  in  the  quotations  brought  by 
Eisner,  there  is  no  ellipsis  at  all ;  consequently  they  are  not  to 
the  purpose.  On  the  other  hand,  every  body  knows  that  £«?, 
which  is  an  adverb  of  time,  when  joined  to  rsra,  means  common- 
ly huciisqiie,  hitherto  ;  and  that  adverbs  of  time  are  occasionally 
used  as  nouns,  may  be  easily  exemplified  in  most  languages. 
Behold  now,  says  Paul,  2  Cor.  vi.  2.  is  the  accepted  time — l^ov 
WD  Kxipoi;  evrpoThyjTix;.  The  words  of  our  Lord,  then,  in  the  most 
simple  and  natural  interpretration,  denote,  Let  pass  what  is  done 

— Enough  of  this — No  more  of  this. 
> 
52.   Officers  of  the  temple. guard,  s-^otj-^ym  m  ttpa.      E.   T. 

Captains  of  the  temple.  The  temple  had  always  a  guard  of  Le- 
vites,  who  kept  watch  in  it,  by  turns,  day  and  night.  There  are 
references  to  this  practice  in  the  O.  T.  both  in  the  Prophets  and 
in  the  Psalms.  Over  this  guard,  one  of  the  priests  was  appoint, 
ed  captain  ;  and  this  office,  according  to  Josephus,  was  next  in 
dignity  to  that  of  high  priest.  It  appears  from  Acts  iv.  I.  v.  24. 
26.  as  well  as  from  the  Jewish  historian,  that  there  was  only  one 
who  had  the  chief  command.  The  plural  number  is  here  used  for 
comprehending  those  who  were  assigned  to  the  captain  as  coun- 
sellors and  assistants.  The  addition  of  the  word  guard,  seemed 
to  be  necessary  in  Eng.  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity. 

2  Clubs,  "EvXav.  E.  T.  Staves.  A  staff  is  intended  principally 
for  assisting  us  in  walking  ;  a  club  is  a  weapon  both  offensive  and 
defensive.  The  former  is,  in  Gr.  px<^Soi;;  the  latter,  ^vMv.  To 
show  that  these  words  are,  in  the  Gospels,  never  used  promiscu- 
ously, let  it  be  observed,  that,  in  our  Lord's  commands  to  his 
Vpostles,  in  relation  to  the  discharge  of  their  office,  when  what 


ill.  XXII. 


S.  LUKE.  37  i 


concerned  their  own  accommodation  in  travelling  is  spoken  of, 
the  word  pxQ^oi  is  used  by  all  the  three  Evangelists,  Mt.  Mr.  and 
L.  who  take  particular  notice  of  that  transaction.  But,  in  the 
account  given  by  the  same  Evangelists  of  the  armed  multitude, 
sent  by  the  high  priests  and  elders  to  apprehend  our  Lord,  they 
never  employ  the  term  ^xC^oi;,  but  always  ^vXov. 

54.  Then  they  seized  him,  and  led  him  azeajj  to  the  high  priest's 
house,  c-yAA3C?ovTe5  ^e  xvrov  tiymyov,  j^  wrajyetyav  xvtov  mj  taw  oiwiv 
Tn  i!c«%(j/j£W5.  E.  T.  The7i  took  they  him  and  led  him,  and  brought 
him  inly  the  high  priesfs  house.  Vul.  Comprehendentes  autem 
eum,  duxerunt  ad  domum  principis  sacerdotiim.  The  words  j^ 
«(rjjy«y«v  ccvrov,  are  not  in  the  Cam.  and  two  other  MSS.  and 
some  Evangelistaries.  The  Sy,  and  Sax.  interpreters,  and  there- 
fore, probably  the  author  of  the  old  Itc.  version,  have  not  read 
them.  It  is  plain  they  add  nothing  to  the  sense.  Hysjyev  u^  rov 
otMD,  and  eia-r/yxyev  ei<;  rov  oiKoi,  are  the  same  thing.  One  of  these, 
superadded  to  the  otiier,  is  a  mere  tautology.  Besides,  there 
appears  something  of  quaintness  in  the  expression,  uvrov  iiyocyo-t 
>^  HTtjy»yov  xvrov,  which  is  very  unlike  this  writer's  style.  1  have, 
therefore,  preferred  here  the  more  simple  manner  of  the  Vul.  and 
the  Sy. 

55.  When  they  had  kindled  afire  in  the  middle  of  the  court^ 
»-^ccvTm  ^e  TTvp  e\i  f^ss-u  tjjj  uvXtj^.  E.  T.  fVhen  they  had  kindled 
afire  in  the  midst  of  the  hall.  The  expression  ejj  u-ea-u,  is  an  evi- 
dence that  this  «fA3)  was  an  open  court.  Besides,  xv>.}j  liere  ap. 
pears  contradistinguished  to  oiko<;,  in  the  preceding  verse.  Mt„ 
xxvi.  58.  N. 

66.  The  national  senate,  to  w^f^flurf^jev  tk  Xota.  E.  T.  The 
elders  of  the  people.  1  do  not  introduce  this  title  here,  as  though 
there  were  any  difficulty  in  explaining  it,  or  any  difference,  in 
respect  of  sense,  in  the  different  translations  given  of  it ;  bM 
solely  to  remark,  that  this  Evangelist  is  the  only  sacred  writer 
who  gives  this  denomination  to  the  sanhedrim  ;  for  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  it  is  of  it  he  is  speaking.  This  is  the  only 
passage  in  the  Gospel  where  it  occurs.  The  same  writer  (Acts 
xxii.  5.)  also  applies  the  i\i\.e' -sr^i^Qvrefucv,  without  the  addition 
T«  Xxn,  to  this  court,  or  at 'least  to  the  members  whereof  it  was 
composedj  considered  as  a  body.     I  thought  it  allowable,  where 


372  NOTES  ON 


tH.  xxm. 


it  can  be  done  with  propriety  (for  it  cannot  in  every  case),  to 
imitate  even  these  little  differences  in  the  style  of  the  inspired 
penmen.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  9,  10, 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

II.  A  shining  robe,  eTB-ijTx  ^Mf^rr^av,  E.  T.  A  gorgeous  robe. 
Vul.  Veste  alba.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Be.  Feste  splendida.  Though 
the  Gr.  word  may  be  rendered  either  way,  I  prefer  the  latter,  as 
denoting  that  quality  of  the  garment  which  was  the  most  remark- 
able ;  for  this  epithet  was  most  properly  given  to  those  vestments 
wherein  both  qualities^  white  and  shining,  were  united.  That 
the  word  xxf^Ttr^oi  was  used  for  white,  the  application  of  it  by 
Polybius  to  the  toga  worn  by  the  candidates  for  offices  at  Rome, 
if  there  were  no  other  evidence,  would  be  sufficient.  But  when 
nothing  beside  the  colour  was  intended,  the  word  Aft/x®-  was 
used,  corresponding  to  the  La.  albus,  as  A«;«,5r^®-  did  to  candi. 
dus.  Such  white  and  splendid  robes  were  worn  in  the  East  by 
sovereigns.  Herod  caused  our  Lord  to  be  dressed  in  such  a  gar- 
ment, not,  as  I  imagine,  to  signify  the  opinion  he  had  of  his 
innocence,  but  in  derision  of  his  pretensions  to  royalty.  Per- 
haps it  was  intended  to  insinuate,  that  those  pretensions  were 
so  absurd  as  to  merit  no  other  punishment  than  contempt  and 
ridicule. 

15.  He  hath  done  nothing  to  deserve  death,  ahv  «|<«v  B^evtarti 
fr<  7r£?r^«y;M.£Vflv  ecvru.  E.  T.  Nothing  worthy  of  death  is  done 
unto  him.  This,  though  unintelligible,  is  a  literal  version  from 
the  Vul.  Er.  and  Zu.  Nihil  dignum  morte  actum  est  ei :  the 
meaning  of  which,  as  it  is  here  connected,  if  it  have  a  meaning, 
is,  '  Herod  hath  not  deserved  to  die  for  any  thing  he  hath  done 
'  to  Jesus.'  Now,  as  it  is  certain  that  this  cannot  be  Pilate's 
meaning,  being  quite  foreign  from  his  purpose,  I  see  no  other 
resource  but  in  supposing,  that  TrfTrpxyf^svov  ctvrw  is  equivalent  to 
•xiTTpetyfJLiiov  utt'  avra.  I  am  not  fond  of  recurring  to  unusual 
constructions  :  but  here,  I  think,  there  is  a  necessity  ;  inasmuch 
as  this  sentence  of  Pilate,  interpreted  by  the  ordinary  rules,  and 
considered  in  reference  to  his  subject,  is  downright  nonsense. 
As  to  other  versions,  the  Sy.  has  rendered  the  words  not  more 


jtr.  XXIII' 


S.  LUKE.  37S 


intelligibly  than  the  Vul.     Cas.  af^opting  the  construction  here 
defended,  says,  nihil  morte  (lignum  ab  hoc  factum  esse.     Be.  t(J 
the  same  purpose,  7iihil  dignuni  morte  factum  est  ab  eo.     Lu. 
keeps  close  to  the  Vul.     The  G.   F.   has  followed  the  Vul.  in 
-what  regards  the  construction,  but  has  introduced  a  supply,  from 
conjecture,  to  make  out  a  meaning, — rien  ne  lui  a  etefait.,  {^ui 
importe  quHl  *o«7]  digne  d'  mart.     Dio,  has  taken  the  same  me- 
thod,— )iie?ifc  glz  e  statofatto  \_di  cio  chc  sifarebbe  a  uno']  che 
havesse  meritata  la  morte.     It  is  strange  that  Be.  has  not  here 
been  followed  by  any  of  those  Protestant  translators,  who  have 
sometimes,  without  necessity  (where  there  was  no  ditficulty  in 
the  words),  followed  him   in  the  liberties  he  had  taken,  much 
more  exceptionable,  in  respect  of  the  sense,  than  the  present,  and 
less  defensible,  in  respect  of  the  expression.     Some  more  recent 
translators,  both  Fr.   and  Eng.  L.  Cl.  Dodd.  and  others,  admit 
the  manner  of  construing  the  sentence  adopted  here.  I  shall  sub- 
join a  few  things,   which  liad    influence  with  me  in  forming  a 
judgment  of  this  matter'.     A  similar  example  is  not,  I  believe, 
to  be  found  in  the  N.  T.  nor  in  tlie  Sep. ;  but  so  many  examples 
of  TTsTrpxy/^aov  rm,  for  7re7rpctyfA.;vi>v  osro  r^v^^,  have  been  produced 
from  classical  authors,  by  Raphelius  and  Wet.  as  show  it  to  haye 
been  no  uncommon  idiom.     Now,  though  L.  abounds  in  Hebra- 
isms, as  much  as  any  sacred  writer,  yet  he  has,  oftener  than  the 
rest,  recourse  to  words  and  idioms  which  he  could  acquire  only 
from  conversing  with  the  Gentiles,  or  reading  their  authors  ;  and 
has,  upon  the  whole,  as  was  observed  before  (Preface,  ^  11.), 
greater  variety  in  his  style  than  any  other  of  the  Evangelists. 
Further,  it  strengthens  the  argument,  that  v^xts-^-:v  ec^iav  S-uittTU^ 
is  a  phrase  not  unfrequent  with  L.  (see  Acts  xxv.  11.  S:5.  xxvi 
31.)  for  expressing  to  do  what  deserveth  death  ;  and,  as  the  only 
inquiry  on   this  occasion  was,  what  Jesus  had  done,  and    what 
he  deserved  to  suffer,  there  is  the  strongest  internal  probability- 
from  the  scope  of  the  place,  that  it  must  mean  what  had  beeti 
done  by  him,  and  not  to  him.  Lastly,  no  other  version  that  is  both 
intelligible  and  suited  to  the  context,  can  be  given,  without  a 
much  greater  departure  from  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation 
and  of  syntax  than  that  here  made.     To  be  convinced  of  this, 
one  needs  only  consider  a  little  the  Itn.  and  G-   F  translatinnfi 
oi  this  passage  above  recited. 

TOL.    IT.  47 


374  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxifr. 

23.  Their  clamours^  and  those  of  the  chief  priests^  prevailed 
—~xecTiT^vov  ui  <pav»i  ccvTm  >^  rm  dp^iepem.  Vul.  Invalescebant 
voces  eorum.  With  this,  agree  one  MS.  which  omits  «,'  t®v  u^xh' 
^tuv,  and  the  Sax.  and  Cop.  versions. 

35.  The  elect  of  God,  o  m  Gm  cKXeKv®-.  This  title  is  adopt- 
ed from  Isaiah,  xlii.  1.  and  appears  to  be  one  of  those  by  which 
the  Messiah  was  at  that  time  distinguished.  Diss.  V.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

43.  Paradise.  Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19,  20,  21. 

50.  A  senator  named  Joseph,  Avy,^  ovofian  luc-ijip  (iaXivr-zi^  ovx^. 
p^m.  E.  T.  A  man  named  Joseph,  a  counsellor.  The  word 
levXevTiK  occurs  nowhere  in  the  N.  T.  but  here  and  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  Mr.  Some  think  that  it  denotes  a  member  of  the  san. 
hedrim,  the  national  senate,  and  supreme  judicatory.  Father 
Simon  says  that  all  the  Jewish  doctors  thus  applied  the  term /3«- 
>^cvTcct.  See  his  Note  on  Mr.  xv.  43.  Gro.  though  doubtful,  in- 
clines rather  to  make  Joseph  a  city  magistrate;  and  Lightfoot, 
founding  also  on  conjecture,  is  positive  that  he  was  one  of  the 
council  chamber  of  the  temple.  To  me,  the  first  appears  far  the 
most  probable  opinion.  What  the  Evangelist  advances,  v.  51. 
is  a  strong  presumption  of  this,  and  more  than  a  counterbalance 
to  all  that  has  been  urged  by  Gro.  and  Lightfoot,  in  support  of 
their  respective  hypotheses.  He  had  not  concurred,  says  the 
historian,  in  their  resolutions  and  proceedings.  To  the  pronoun 
avTuv  their,  the  antecedent,  though  not  expressed,  is  clearly  in- 
dicated by  the  construction  to  be  o<  (iaXivrxi,  the  senators.  And 
of  these  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  is  here  represented  as  the  reso- 
lution and  the  deed.  With  what  propriety  could  it  be  called  the 
deed  of  the  city  magistrates  of  Jerusalem,  or  (if  possible,  still 
worse)  of  a  council  which  was  no  judicatory,  being  intended 
solely  for  regulating  the  sacred  service,  and  inspecting  the  affairs 
of  the  temple  ?  The  title  (v<f^7iiA.a)v  given  liim  by  Mr.  shows  him 
to  have  been  of  the  highest  dignity.  But,  admit  that  this  does 
not  amount  to  a  proof  that  Joseph  was  a  member  of  the  sanhe. 
drim  ;  there  is  no  impropriety  in  rendering  QaXevrr,/;  senator. 
The  Eng.  word  admits  the  same  latitude  of  application  with  the 
Greek.  The  La.  senator  is  commonly  rendered  into  Gr.  fiaXiv. 
t;)?,  and  this  Gr.  word,  though  rendered  by  the  Vul.  decurio,  is 
translated  by  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  and  Be.  senator.  This  rendering 
Js,  therefore,  not  improper,  whatever  was  the  case.     But  to  sav 


c«.  xxiu.  ^'  LUKE. 

one  of  the  council  chamber  of  the  temple,  if  that  was  not  the 
■fact,  is  a  mistranslation  of  the  word.  In  all  dubious  cases,  the 
choice  of  a  general  term  is  the  only  safe  mode  of  translating  : 
but  the  tendency  of  most  interpreters  is,  at  any  risk,  to  be  par- 
ticular. 

54    The  Sabbath  approached,  (r«??«T«v  i-K^<pu<TyA.     Vul.  Sab. 
batum  illncescehat.     The  Jews,  in  their  way  of  reckoning  the 
days,  counted  from  sun.set  to  sun.set,  thus  beginning  the  natu- 
ral day,  TO  v.;,^.^.^«v,  with  the  night.     This  had  been  the  manner 
from  the  earliost  ages.     Moses,  in  his  history  of  the  creation, 
concludes  the  account  of  the  several  days  in  this  manner— J«r/ 
the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day  ;-and  so  of  all 
the  s\x,  always  making  mention  of  the  evening  first.     There  is 
some  reason  to  think,  that  the  same  method  of  counting  had,  in 
very  ancient  times,  prevailed  in  other  nations.    It  was  not,  how. 
ever,  the  way  that  obtained  in  the  neighbouring  countries  in  the 
time' of  the  Apostles.     Most  others  seem,  at  that  time,  to  have 
reckoned  as  we  do,  from  midnight  to  midnight ;  and,  in  distin- 
auishing  the  two  constituent  parts  of  the  natural  day,  named  the 
morning  first.     Had  the  Jewish  practice  been  universal,  it  is 
hardly  possible  that  such  a  phrase  as  ^*fb*rov  i7re(pc^<rKB,  sabba- 
turn  illucescebat,  to  signify  that  the  sabbath  was  drawing  on,  had 
ever  arisen.     The  expressions,  then,  might   have  been  such  as 
Li<^htfoot  supposes,  «,  ^.^Uro.  ....r.cr^.,  and  obtenebrescebcU 
in  sabbatum;  the  sabbath  being,  as  every  other  day,  ushered  m 
.vith  darkness,  which  advances  with  it  for  several  hours.     The 
eonjecture  of  Grotius,  that  L.  in  this  expression,  refers  to  the 
light  of  the  stars,  which  do  not  appear  till  after  sun-set,  and  to 
the  moon,  which  gives  at  least  no  sensible  light  till  then,  is  quite 
iinsatisfactory.     That  the  coming  of  night  should,  on  this  ac 
count,  be  signified  by  an  expression  which  denotes  the  increase 
ef  licrht.  is  not  more  natural  than  it  would  be  to  express  the  pro. 
gres^  of  the  morning,  at  sun-rise,  by  a  phrase  which  implies  the 
increase  of  darkness,  and  which  we  might  equally  well  account 
for  by  saying  that,  in  consequence  of  the  sun's  rising,  the  stars 
disappear,  and  we  no  longer  enjoy  moon-shine.     I  am  no  better 
pleased  with  the  supposition,  to  which  Wet.  seems  to  point,  that 
there  is  an  allusion  here  to  a  Jewish  custom,  of  ushering  m  the 
sabbath  by  lighting  lamps  in  their  houses.     The  transactions 
spoken  of"  in  this  chapter,  were  all  without  doors,  where  those 


376  NOTES  ON 


£H.  XXIII. 


lights  could  have  no  effect ;  besides,  they  were  too  inconsidera- 
ble (n  ccrasion  so  flagrant  a  deviation  from  truth,  as  to  distin- 
guish the  advance  of  the  evening  by  an  expression  which  denote* 
ihe  increase  of  the  light.  Lightfoot's  hypothesis  is,  as  usual,  in- 
genious, but  formed  entirely  on  the  language  and  usages  of  mo- 
dern rabbies.  He  observes  that,  with  them,  the  Hebrew  iik,  an- 
swering to  the  Greek  (p<i>i,  is  used  for  night;  and,  taking  it  for 
granted  that  this  use  is  as  ancient  as  our  Saviour's  time,  the  ap- 
proach of  night  would  naturally,  he  thinks,  be  expressed  by 
eTTt^wr^.a,  illucesco.  But,  let  it  be  observed  that,  as  the  rabbini- 
cal Horks  quoted  areconiparalively  recent,  and  as  their  language 
is  much  corrupted  with  modeniisms  from  European  and  other 
tongues,  it  is  not  safe  to  infer,  merely  from  their  use,  what  ob- 
fained  in  the  times  of  the  Apostles.  As  to  t!ie  word  in  question, 
certain  it  is,  that  we  have  no  vestige  of  such  a  use  in  the  O.  T. 
There  are  not  many  words  which  occur  oftener  than  -iin  ;  but  it 
never  means  night,  or  has  been  so  rendered  by  any  translator 
"whatever.  The  authors  of  the  Sep.  have  never  used  4i»5  in  ren- 
dering nV'V,  the  Heb.  word  for  nighty  nor  v^|  in  rendering  "iw. 
The  word  4'*'«  never  signifies  night  in  the  Jewish  Apocryphal 
writings,  nor  in  the  N.  T.  I  even  suspect  that,  in  the  modern 
rabbinical  dialect,  it  does  not  mean  night  exclusively,  but  the 
natural  da.y,w^6>if<.£^/>v,  including  both  ;  in  which  case  it  is  a  mere 
Latinism,  li/x  for  dies.  Nay,  some  of  his  own  quotations  giv« 
ground  for  this  suspicion.  VVhat  he  has  rendered  luce  diei  deci" 
mce  quartce.,  is  literally  from  the  original  quoted  luce  decima 
quarta.  Nor  does  it  invalidate  this  opinion,  that  the  thing  men- 
tioned, clearing  the  house  of  leaven  before  the  passover,  is,  ac- 
cording to  their  present  customs,  dispatched  in  the  night-time, 
and  vvith  candle-light.  The  expression  may,  notwithstanding, 
be  used  as  generally  as  those  employed  in  the  law,  which  does 
not,  in  the  discharge  of  this  duty,  confine  them  to  the  night ;  nor 
does  their  use  of  candles  or  lamps,  in  this  service,  show  that  they 
confined  themselves  to  the  night.  Even  in  the  day-time,  these 
are  necessary  for  a  search,  wherein  not  a  press  or  corner,  hole 
or  cranny,  in  the  house,  is  to  be  left  unexplored.  But  admit- 
ting that  the  rabbies  have  sometimes  preposterously  used  the 
word  TIN,  for  the  tiight,  of  which  the  learned  author  has  pro- 
duced the  testimony  of  one  of  their  glossaries,  its  admission  into 
a.  work  whoseuse  is  to  interpret  into  proper  Heb.  the  barbarism? 


^H.  XXIV.  S.  LUKE.  S77 

^nd  improprieties  which  have,  in  latter  ages,  been  foisted  into  their 
tongue,  is  itself  sufficient  evidence  that  it  is  a  mere  corruption. 
How,  indeed,  can  it  be  otherwise  ?   Moses  tells  us  (Gen.  i.  5.), 
that  at  the  creation,  God  called  the  light  dajj,  and  the  darkness 
he  called  night.     But  this  right  use  of  words  these  preposterous 
teachers  have  thought  proper  to  reverse,  being  literally  of  the 
number  of  those  stigmatized   by  the  Prophet  (Isaiah  v.  20.),  as 
putting  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkntss      The  way, 
therefore,  wherein   I  would  account  for  this  express^rn  of  the 
Evangelist  (a  way  which  has  been  hinted  by  some  forinei  inter- 
preters) is  very  simple.     In  all  the  nations  rouint  (the  Jews, 
perhaps,  alone  excepted)  it  was  customary  to  reckon  the  morn- 
ing the  first  part  of  the  day,  the  evening  the  spcond.    Those  who 
reckoned  in  this  manner,  would  naturally  apply  the  verb  evii^as-yM 
to  the  ushering  in  of  the  day.      L.  who   was,  according  to  Kuse. 
bins,  from  Antioch  of  Syria,  by  living  much  among  Gentiles,  and 
those  who  used  this  style,  or  even  by  frequent  occasions  cf  con- 
versing with  such,  would  insensibly  acquire  a  habit  of  using  it. 
A  habit  of  thus  expressing  the  commencement  of  a  new  day,  con. 
tracted  where  the  expression  was  not  improper,  will  account  for 
one's  falling  into  it  occasionally,  when,  in  consequence  of  a  dif- 
ference in  a  single  circumstance,  the  term  is  not  strictly  proper. 
And  this,  by  the  way,  is  at  least  a  presumption  of  the  truth  of  a 
remark  I  lately  made,  that  this  Evangelist  has,  oftener  than  the 
rest,  recourse  to  words  and  idioms  which  he  must  have  acquired 
from  the  conversation   of  the  heathen,   or  from  reading  their 
books.     This  is  an  expression  of  that  kind  which,  though  it 
might  readily  be  imported,  could  not  originate  among  the  Jews. 
I  shall  only  add,  that  the  use  which  Mt.  makes  of  the  same  verb 
(xxviii.   1.)  is  totally  different.     He  is  there  speaking  of  the 
morning,  when  the  women  came  to  our  Lord's  sepulchre,  whieh 
was  about  sun-rise.     Here,  on  the  contrary,  the  time  spoken  of. 
is  the  approach-of  sun.set ;  for  the  setting  of  the  sun  made  the 
beginning  of  the  sabbath. 

CHAPTER   XXIV. 

1.  With  some  others,  xut  T<vf?  o-i/v  xvrxii.  These  words  are 
wanting  in  two  or  three  MSS.  They  are  also  omitted  in  the  Vul. 
Cop.  Srx.  and  Eth.  versions;  but  are  in  the  Sy.  and  the  Ara. 


3?6  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XXIV.; 


The  external  evidence  against  their  admission,  compared  with 
the  evidence  in  their  favour,  is  as  nothing.  But  a  son  of  inter- 
nal evidence  has  been  pleaded  against  them.  As  no  v.omen  are 
named,  either  here,  or  in  the  conclusion  of  the  preceding  chapter, 
what  addition  does  it  make  to  the  sense  to  say,  z^ith  some  others  ? 
Or  what  is  the  meaning  of  it,  where  none  are  specified  ?  I  answer, 
the  women  spoken  of  here,  though  not  named,  are  mentioned  in 
the  last  verse  but  one  of  the  foregoing  chapter,  under  this  des. 
cription — the  women  who  had  accompanied  Jesus  from  Galilee. 
Now,  where  is  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  those  pious  wo- 
men from  Galilee  were  accompanied  by  some  of  our  Lord's 
female  disciples  from  Jerusalem  and  its  neighbourhood  ?  As  it 
is  certain  that  our  Lord  had  there  many  disciples  also,  I  see 
no  reason  why  we  should  not  here  be  determined  solely  by  the 
weight  and  number  of  authorities. 

12.  He  went  away  musing^  zdlh  astonishment.,  on  zohat  had 
happened^  «e«-;jA^f,  «-^o$  iuvrov  B-u.vfA.x^6>t  to  ytyotoi.  Some  point  the 
words  differently,  removing  the  comma  after  a,7ryiX6t^  and  placing 
it  after  fanTav;  and,  in  consequence  of  this  alteration,  render  the 
clause,  he  went  home  wondering  at  what  had  happened.  Thus, 
J.  XX.  10.  A7n]X6oy  ovv  ttxXiv  tt^h;  luvravi  oi  y.ciSt}Txi^  is  rendered  in 
the  E.  T.  The7i  the  disciples  zoent  away  again  unto  their  own 
home.  That  the  words  of  L.  admit  of  such  an  adjustment  and 
translation,  cannot  be  denied.  The  common  punctuation,  how- 
ever, appears  to  me  preferable,  for  these  reasons  :  1st,  It  is  that 
which  has  been  adopted  by  all  the  ancient  translations,  the  Cop. 
alone  excepted.  2dly,  It  has  a  particular  suitableness  to  the 
style  of  this  Evangelist.  Thus,  ch.  xviii.  \\.  v^oi  Ixvrev  rxvTx 
Tr^oTtjv^iro,  is,  in  the  E.  T.  rendered,  prayed  thus  with  himself ; 
though,  I  confess,  it  admits  another  version ;  and,  xx.  14.  ^teXs- 
-yt^ovTo  TT^oi  ixvTovi.,  they  reasoned  atnong  themselves.  3dly,  It 
appears  more  probable  from  what  we  are  told,  verse  24th  of  this 
chapter,  and  from  the  account  given  by  J.  ch.  xx.  that  Peter  did 
not  go  directly  home,  but  returned  to  the  place  where  the  Apos- 
tles, and  some  other  disciples,  were  assembled.  And  this  ap- 
pears to  be  the  import  of  axsjA^ov  vfoi  exvrovi^  J.  xx.  10.  which 
see. 

18.  ylrt  thou  alone  such  a  stranger  in  Jerusalem  as  to  be 

'unacquainted P   Sw  jf-ave?  ttu^oixsh  ev  'iff  S5-«A,)m.,  kxi  (mj  syvuf  ;  E.  T 


en.  XXIV 


S.  LUKE.  37.9 


j^lrf  thou  only  a  stranger  in  Jerusalem^  and  hast  not  known  ? 
There  are  two  ways  wherein  the  words  of  Cleopas  may  be  rni. 
derstood  by  the  reader  :  one  is  as  a  method  of  accounting  for  the 
apparent  ignorance  of  this  traveller  ;  tlie  other  as  an  expression 
of  surprise,  that  any  one  who  had  been  at  Jerusalem  at  the  time, 
though  but  a  stranger,  should  not  know  what  had  made  so  much 
noise  amongst  all  ranks,  and  had  so  much  occupied,  for  some 
days,  all  the  leading  men  in  the  nation,  the  chief  priests,  the 
scribes,  the  rulers,  and  the  whole  sanhedrim,  as  well  as  the  Ro- 
man procurator  and  the  soldiery.  The  common  version  favours 
the  first  interpretation  ;  I  prefer  the  second,  in  concurrence,  as 
I  imagine,  with  the  majority  of  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern. 
I  cannot  discover  with  Be.  any  thing  in  it  remote  from  common 
speech.  On  the  contrary,  I  think  it,  in  such  a  case  as  the  pre. 
sent,  so  natural  an  expression  of  surprise,  that  examples,  re- 
markably similar,  may  be  produced  from  most  languages.  Dio. 
O.  l/v  ocpu^  eiTre^  jM,evo5  oevs)x«o?  et  ravrav  u  Txvrii  iTxriv  ;  Are  you  the 
only  person  zcho  have  never  heard  zchat  all  the  ziorld  knozcs  ? 
Cicero, /;ro  Milone :  "  An  vos,  judices,  vero  soli  ignoratis,  vos 
•'  hospites  in  hac  urbe  versamini  ;  vestrae  peregrinantur  aures, 
"  neque  in  hoc  pervagato  civitatis  sermone  versantur  ?" 

19.  Powerful  in  word  and  deed,  ^wxrai  sv  tpyu  kxi  y.oyu.  I 
have  here  altered  the  order  a  little,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  a 
small  ambiguity  ;  in  deed  might  be  mistaken  for  the  adverb. 
The  first  of  these  phrases,  powerful  in  word,  relates  to  the  wis- 
dom and  eloquence  which  our  Lord  displayed  in  his  teaching; 
the  other  relates  to  the  miracles  which  he  performed. 

25.  0  thoughtless  men  !  a  uveijroi.  E.  T.  0  fools.  The  word  is 
not  D,  /iuu^oi.  The  two  words  are  not  synonymous.  The  term  last 
mentioned,  is  a  term  of  great  indignation,  and  sometimes  of 
contempt ;  that  employed  here  is  a  term  of  expostulation  and 
reproof. 

29.  They  constrained  him,  Trx^eSixTxvro  xvrev.  How  did  they 
constrain  him  ?  Did  they  lay  violent  hands  on  him,  and  carry 
him  in,  whether  he  would  or  not  ?  The  sequel  shows — saying^ 
abide  with  us ;  for  it  groweth  late,  and  the  day  is  far  spent. 
The  expression,  in  such  cases,  must  always  be  interpreted  ac- 
cording to  popular  usage.  Usages,  such  as  this,  of  expressing 
great  urgency  of  solicitation  bv  terms  which,  in  strictness,  imT-. 


380  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxir. 

ply  force  and  compulsion,  are  common  in  every  tongue.  How 
little,  then,  is  f^hfre  of  candour,  or  at  least  of  common  sense,  in 
the  expositi  ')  which  has  been  given  by  some,  of  a  like  phrase  of 
the  same  writer,  ch,  xiv.  23.  Compel  them  to  come  in^  caos.yKoti-a't 
£tTeX6  !y  ? 

3  I.  fFAo  said,  The  Master  is  actually  risen,  and  hath  appear, 
ed  unto  Simon.   Aeyovretg'  'Cr<  iyep^vs  o   Kv^iog  ovToii,   t^  ttxplh}  2(- 
fMJvi    Mr.     Markland  (Bowyer's  Conjectures)  thinks  that  the 
words  ought  to  be  read  interrogatively.     "  /*  the  Lord  risen 
"  indeed,  and  hath  appeared  to  Simon?  with  a  sneer  on  the  ere- 
"  dility  or  vpricity  of  the  informers,  Peter  and   Cleopas:"  for 
these,  he  thinks,  were  the  two  to  whom  Jesus  appeared  on  the 
road  to  Em  ma  lis.      Light  fool's  explanation  is  much  to  the  same 
purpose.     To  me  the  words  do  not  appear  susceptible  of  this 
version.     'Ey^ov  Aeyevrss?   oti   can  never  be  made  to  introduce  a 
question.     There  is  no  ditferent  reading,  except  that  the  Cam. 
reads  Xeyavrn  for  Asyovr^?,  in  which  it  is  singular.     That  Peter 
was  one  of  the  two  is  improbable.     He  is  not  named  by  either 
Mr.  or  L.  though  Cleopas  is  by  the  latter,  and  though  Peter  never 
fails  to   be  mentioned  by  name,  by  the  sacred  historians,  when 
they  record  any  transaction  wherein  he  had  a  part.  The  opinion 
that  he  was  one  of  the  two  seems  to  have  arisen  from  a  hasty  as- 
sertion of  Origen.  It  has  not  the  support  of  tradition,  which  has, 
from  the  beginning,  been  divided  on  this  point ;  some  thinking 
L.  himself  the  unnamed  disciple,  some,  Nathanael,  others  one  of 
the  Seventy  sent  by  our  Lord,  in  his  lifetime.     The  great  object 
of  this  attempt  of  Markland's,  is  to  avoid  an  apparent  contra- 
diction to  the  words  of  Mr.  who  says  (xvi.  13  )  that  when  the 
two  disciples,  at  their  return,  acquainted  the  rest,  "  they  did  not 
"  believe  them."     This,    which  is,  in  fact,  the  only  difficulty, 
does  not  imply  that  none  of  them  believed,  but  that  several,  per- 
haps the  greater  part,  did  not  believe.    On  the  other  hand,  when 
L.   tells   us,  that  the  eleven  and  those  with  them  said,  "  The 
"  Master  is  actually  risen,  and  hath  appeared  unto  Simon,"  we 
are  not  to  conclude  that  every  one  said  this,  or  even  believed  it- 
but  only  that  some  believed,  one  of  whom  expressly  affirmed  it. 
Such  latitude  in  using  the  pronouns  is  common  in  every  language. 
Mt.  and  Mr.  say  that  the  malefactors  who  suffered  with  Jesus 
reproached  him  on  the  cross.  From  L.  we  learn  that  it  was  only 
one  of  them  who  acted  thus. 


CH.  XXIV.  S.  LUKE.  381 

36.  Peace  he  unto  you,  tt^iivi]  hy.tv.  Vu\.  Pax  vobis :  ego  sum, 
nolite  timere.  Two  Gr.  MSS.  agreeably  to  this  translation,  add 
eyu  eiui'  {/.■>;  (poCeta-de.  Both  the  Sy.  also  the  Cop.  the  Sax.  and  the 
Arm.  versions,  are  conformable  to  this  reading. 

43.  Which  he  took  and  ate  in  their  presence,  km  XxQu]!  evaTrtav 
uvrav  £(pctyiv.  Vul.  Et  cum  manducasset  coram  eis,  siimens  reli- 
quias  dedit  eis.  With  this  agree  the  Cop.  and  the  Sax.  versions, 
and  the  three  Gr.  MSS.  which  add  Kxt  rx  iTeiXonru,  b^mkev  av- 
roii.  There  are  some  other  variations  on  this  verse,  which  it 
is  not  necessary  here  to  specify. 

44.  In  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  Prophets^  and  the  Psalms, 
ev  ru  tofJLU  MekKreu^  x.ctt  npo<pr,Tc(,t<;  km  ■^a,\fJLoi<;,  Under  these  three, 
the  Jews  were  wont  to  comprehend  all  the  books  of  the  O.  T. 
Under  the  name  law,  the  five  books  called  the  Pentateuch  were 
included;  the  chief  historical  books  were  joined  with  the  Pro. 
phets  ;  and  all  the  rest  with  the  Psalms. 

49.  I  send  1/ou  that  which  mi/  Father  hath  promised.  Diss. 
XII.  P.  I.   §  14. 

^  The  name  of  Jerusalem  is  omitted  in  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  ver- 
sions.    It  is  wanting  also  in  three  noted  MSS. 

52.  Having  worshipped  him ,  Tr^oTKWiiTxvrei  xvrov :  that  is,  hav' 
ing  thrown  themselves  prostrate  before  him,  as  the  words,  strictly 
interpreted,  imply.     Mt.  ii.  2.   ^  N. 

VOL.  IV.  48 


NOTES 

CRITICAL  AND  EXPLANATORY. 


THE  GOSPEL  BY  JOHN. 
CHAPTER  I. 

1.  JiV  the  beginning  was  the  word,  ev  ««;k'»  '?"  »  Xayeg.  I  have 
here  followed  the  E.  T.  and  the  majority  of  modern  versions. 
Vul.  and  Zu.  In  principio  erat  verbum.  Er.  Be.  and  Cas.  have, 
Instead  of  verbum,  used  the  word  sermo.  The  Gr.  word  /ayes 
is  susceptible  of  several  interpretations,  the  chief  of  which  are 
these  two,  reason  and  speech — ratio  and  oraiio.  The  former  is 
properly  o  Xoyoc,  'o  a^txSiToi,  ratio  mente  concepta  ;  the  latter 'e  Aa- 
y«s  '«  TT^aipopiKoi,  ratio  enunciativa.  The  latter  acceptation  is 
that  which  has  been  adopted  by  most  interpreters.  If  the  prac- 
tice of  preceding  translators  is  ever  entitled  to  implicit  regard! 
from  their  successors,  it  is  where  the  subject  is  of  so  abstruse  a 
nature,  as  hardly  to  admit  an  exposition  which  is  not  liable  to 
strong  objections.  For  my  part,  the  difference  between  verbum 
and  sermo  appears  too  inconsiderable,  in  a  case  of  this  kind,  io 
induce  one  to  leave  the  beaten  track.  Were  I  to  desert  it  (which. 
I  do  not  think  there  is  here  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant),  I 
should  prefer  the  word  reason,  as  suggesting  the  inward  princi- 
ple or  faculty,  and  not  the  external  enunciation,  which  may  be 
called  word  or  speech.  Things  plausible  may  be  advanced  iu 
support  of  either  mode  of  interpreting.  In  favour  of  the  common 
version,  word,  it  may  be  urged,  that  there  is  here  a  manifest  al- 
lusion to  the  account  given  of  the  creation  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  where  we  learn,  that  God,  in  the  beginning,  made  all 
things  by  his  word.  God  said — and  it  was  so.  In  favour  of 
the  other  interpretation,  some  have  contended,  that  there  is  a 
reference  in  the  expression  to  the  doctrise  of  the  Platonists  ; 
whilst  others  are  no  less  positive,  that  the  sacred  author  had,  in 
his  eye,  the  sentiments  of  Philo  the  Jew.     Periaps  these  two 


384  NOTES  ON  ch.  r. 

suppositions  amount  to  the  same  thing  in  effect ;  at  least  it  is 
more  probable,  that  the  Jewish  theorist  borrowed  his  notions  on 
this  subject  from  the  Gr.  Philosopher,  than  that  the  Evangelist 
should  have  recourse  to  an  idolater.  For  my  part,  I  entirely 
agree  with  those  who  think  it  most  likely  that  the  allusion  here 
is  to  a  portion  of  holy  writ,  and  not  to  the  reveries  of  either 
Philo  or  Plato.  The  passage  of  holy  writ  referred  to,  is  Prov. 
viii.  throughout.  What  is  here  termed  'o  Myoq^  is  there  sj'  o-ocpix. 
There  is  such  a  coincidence  in  the  things  attributed  to  each,  as  evi- 
dently shows,  that  both  were  intended  to  indicate  the  same  divine 
personage.  The  passage  in  the  Proverbs,  I  own,  admits  a  more 
familiar  explanation,  as  regarding  the  happy  consequences  of 
that  mental  quality  which  we  may  call  true  or  heavenly  wisdom. 
But  it  is  suitable  to  the  genius  of  scripture  prophecy  to  convey, 
under  such  allegorical  language,  the  most  important  and  sublime 
discoveries.  Plausible  arguments,  therefore,  (though  not,  per- 
haps, perfectly  decisive),  might  be  urged  for  rendering  My«i;^  in 
this  passage,  reason.  But  as  the  common  rendering,  which  is  also 
not  without  its  plausibility,  has  had  the  concurrent  testimony  of 
translators,  ancient  as  well  as  modern,  and  seems  well  adapted 
to  the  office  of  the  Messiah,  as  the  oracle  and  interpreter  of  God. 
I  thought,  upon  the  whole,  better  to  retain  it. 

^  The  word  was  God^  ©£««  jjv  'o  Xoyoi.  The  old  English  trans- 
lation, authorised  by  Henry  VIII.  following  the  arrangement 
used  in  the  original,  says,  God  was  the  word.  In  this  manner, 
Lu.  also,  in  his  Ger.  translation,  renders  it  (Kott  toar  liaa  too^t^ 
Others  maintain,  (though,  perhaps,  the  opinion  has  not  been 
adopted  by  any  translator),  that,  as  the  word  Geog  is  here  with- 
out the  article,  the  clause  should  be,  in  English,  a  God  was  the 
word.  But  to  this,  several  answers  may  be  given.  1st,  It  may 
be  argued,  that,  though  the  article  prefixed  shows  a  noun  to  be 
definite,  the  bare  want  of  the  article  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that 
the  noun  is  used  indefinitely.  See  verses  6th,  12th,  13th,  and 
18th,  of  this  chapter  ;  in  all  which,  though  the  word  ^eoi  has  no 
article,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  means  God,  in  the  strictest 
sense.  2dly,  It  is  a  known  usage  in  the  language  to  distinguish 
the  subject  in  a  sentence  from  what  is  predicated  of  it,  by  pre. 
fixing  the  article  to  the  subject,  and  giving  no  article  to  the  pre- 
dicate. This  is  observed  more  carefully  when  the  predicate  hap- 
pens, as  in  this,  passage,  to  be  named  first     Raphelius  has  given 


CH.  I.. 


S.  JOHN.  385 


an  excellent  example  of  this  from  Herodotus,  Nt;|  jj'  jj'm,^/)*  eyevE- 
To  o-(P'.  n.%y,ofj(,iyoicri^  "  The  day  was  turned  into  night  before  they 
"  had  done  fighting."  Here  it  is  only  by  means  of  the  article 
that  we  know  this  to  be  the  meaning.  Take  from  jjV-'^st  the  ar- 
ticle, and  prefix  it  to  vy|,  and  the  sense  will  be  inverted  ;  it  will 
be  then,  the  night  was  turned  into  day. — An  example  of  the 
same  idiom  we  have  from  Xenophon's  Hellen,  in  these  words, 
'O  5'£«5  7roAAi«)c<?  Z'^'S^h  '■*'5  /«•£»  f^ixpsii  i^eyxXm  ire/wv,  ry?  Sc  w-fyaASs 
ft(K§8?.  Here,  though  the  subject  is  named  before  the  predicate, 
it  is  much  more  clearly  distinguished  by  the  article  than  by  the 
place,  which  has  not  the  importance  in  the  Gr.  and  La.  langua- 
ges that  it  has  in  ours.  That  the  same  use  obtained  in  the  idiom 
of  the  synagogue,  may  be  evinced  from  several  passages,  particu- 
larly from  Isa.  v.  20.  rendered  by  the  Seventy,  Ovai  it  Myovrs^  to 
7royi]§ov  KxXa))^  >^  ro  kxXov  7rovi;pov^  oi  TiSivrsi  to  tkoto^  ^wq^  x.u,i  to  ^«5 
ff-)caros,  ot  Ti6etT£i  to  TTiKpov  yXvycv^  x.sct  to  yXvx,v  zrupov.  This  is  entire- 
ly similar  to  the  example  from  Xenophon.  In  both,  the  same 
words  have,  and  want,  the  article  alternately,  as  they  are  made 
the  subject,  or  the  predicate,  of  the  alfirmations.  I  shall  add  two 
examples  from  the  N.  T.  Trvtv/^n  6  ©ios,  J.  iv.  24. ;  and  TirccvToi  tx 
ifMt.  <rx  fs-<v,  L.  XV.  31. 

3.  All  things  were  made  by  it ;  and  without  it 4.  In  it  was 

life.    E.  T.  All  things  were  made  by  him  ;  and  without  him ■ 

In  him  was  life.  It  is  much  more  suitable  to  the  figurative  style 
here  employed,  to  speak  oi  the  word,  though  denoting  a  person, 
as  a  thiiig,  agreeably  to  the  grammatical  idiom,  till  a  direct  inti- 
mation is  made  of  its  personality.  This  intimation  I  consider  as 
made,  verse  4th,  In  it  was  life.  The  way  of  rendering  here 
adopted,  is,  as  far  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  observe,  agreeable 
to  the  practice  of  all  translators,  except  the  English.  In  the 
original,  the  word  >.oy«5,  being  in  the  masculine  gender,  did  not 
admit  a  ditference  in  the  pronouns.  In  the  Vul.  the  noun  ver- 
bum  is  in  the  neuter  gender.  Accordingly,  we  have,  in  the 
second  verse.  Hoc  (not  hie)  erat  in  principio  apud  Deum.  In 
most  of  the  oblique  cases,  both  of  hie  and  ipse^  the  masculine  and 
the  neuter  are  the  same.  In  Italian,  the  name  is  parola,  which 
is  feminine.  Accordingly  the  feminine  pronoun  is  always  used 
in  referring  to  it.  Thus  Dio.  Essa  era  nel  priticipio  appo  Iddio.. 
Ou;ni  cosa  e  stata  fatta  per  essa  ;  e  sejiza  e*s«.— -The  same  thing 
may  be  observed  of  all  the  Fr.  interpreters  who  translate  from 


386  NOTES  ON 


CH.  I. 


the  Gr.  As  they  render  Xayo^  by  parole,  a  noun  of  the  feminine 
gender,  the  pronoun  which  refers  to  it  is  always  elle.  In  Ger. 
which,  in  respect  of  structure,  resembles  more  our  own  language 
than  either  of  the  former  does,  the  noun  toort  is  neuter.  Accord- 
ingly, in  Luther's  translation,  the  pronoun  employed  is  Bajiisel. 
Btge,  which  is  also  neuter,  and  corresponds  to  itself,  in  Eng. 
As  to  Knglish  versions,  it  is  acknowledged  that  al!  posterior  to 
the  common  translation  have  in  this  implicitly  followed  it.  But 
it  deserves  to  be  remarked  that  every  version  which  preceded  it, 
as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  uniformly  employed  the 
neuter  pronoun,  it.  So  it  is  in  that  called  the  Bishop's  Bible, 
and  in  the  G.  E.  Beside,  that  this  method  is  more  agreeable  to 
grammatical  propriety,  it  evidently  preserves  the  allusion  better 
which  there  is  in  this  passage  to  the  account  of  the  creation  given 
by  Moses,  and  suggests  more  strongly  the  analogy  that  subsists 
between  the  work  of  creation  and  that  of  redemption,  in  respect 
of  the  same  Almighty  agent  by  whom  both  were  carried  into  exe. 
cation  ;  for,  bi/  hint  God  also  made  the  worlds,  Heb.  i.  2.  Add 
to  all  this,  that  the  antecedent  to  the  pronoun  it,  can  only  be  the 
zoord;  whereas  the  antecedent  to  him  may  be  more  naturally 
concluded  to  be  God,  the  nearest  noun  ;  in  which  case,  the  in- 
formation given  by  the  Evangelist,  verse  3d,  amounts  to  no  more 
than  what  Moses  has  given  us  in  the  beginning  of  Genesis,  to  wit, 
that  God  made  all  things  ;  and  what  is  affirmed  in  verse  4th,  de- 
notes no  more  than  that  God  is  not  inanimate  matter,  the  uni. 
verse,  fate,  or  nature,  but  a  living  being  endowed  with  intelli- 
gence and  power.  I  believe  every  candid  and  judicious  reader 
will  admit,  that  something  more  was  intended  by  the  Evangelist. 
Nor  is  there  any  danger  lest  the  terms  should,  by  one  who 
gives  the  smallest  attention  to  the  attributes  here  ascribed  to  the 
zcord,  be  too  literally  understood.  Let  it  be  observed  further, 
that  the  method  here  taken  is  that  which,  in  similar  cases,  is 
adopted  by  our  translators.  Thus  it  is  the  same  divine  person- 
age who,  in  verse  4th,  is  called  the  light  of  men  j  to  which,  ne- 
vertheless, the  pronoun  eY  is  applied,  verse  5th,  without  hurting 
our  ears  in  the  least. 

2  Without  it,  not  a  single  creature  was  made.,  yu?"i  "■^'^^  ^V^- 
v£Ta  H^i  £v  0  y£yoV£v,  Some  critics,  by  a  dilierent  pointing,  cut  off 
the  two  last  words,  o  y^yo^i^,  from  th^s  sentence,  as  redundant, 
and  prefix  them  to  the  following,  making  verse  4th  run  thus. 


CH.    I. 


S.  JOHN.  387 


o  yeyeviv  cv  eivro)  ^ati  th,  What  zcas  made  in  il  was  life.  The 
Vul.  is  susceptible  of  the  like  difference  in  meaning,  from  the 
different  ways  of  pointing,  as  the  Gr.  is.  The  same  may  be  said 
of  the  Sy.  and  of  some  other  translations  both  ancient  and  modern. 
In  languages  which  do  not  admit  this  ambiguity,  or  in  which 
translators  have  not  chosen  to  retain  it,  the  general  inclination 
appears  to  have  been  to  the  meaning  here  assigned.  It  is  urged,  in 
favour  of  the  other,  that  it  is  much  in  John's  manner,  to  begin 
sentences  with  the  word  or  words  which  concluded  the  sentence 
immediately  preceding.  This  is  true,  and  we  have  some  instances 
of  it  in  this  chapter  ;  but  it  is  also  true,  that  it  is  much  in  the 
manner  of  this  Evangelist  to  employ  repetitions  and  tautologies, 
for  the  sake  of  fixing  the  reader's  attention  on  the  sentiments, 
and  rendering  them  plainer.  Of  this,  the  present  Gospel,  nay 
this  very  chapter,  affords  examples.  Thus,  verse  7th,  r,x6ev  «? 
fLX^Tv^iov^  tvci  fj^x^Tv^tiT'/j ',  verse  20th,  6);M,oAfly;)5-£ : — y.xi  ax.  ij^vi/iTciro^ 
y.xi  afMXoynis-iv. — Admitting,  therefore,  that  both  interpretations 
were  equally  favoured  by  the  genius  of  the  tongue,  and  the 
Apostle's  manner  of  writing,  the  common  interpretation  is  pre- 
ferable, because  simpler  and  more  perspicuous.  The  apparent 
repetition  in  this  verse  is  supposed,  not  implausibly,  to  suggest, 
that  not  only  the  matter  of  the  world  was  produced,  but  every 
individual  being  was  formed  by  the  word. 

6.  The  light  shone  in  darkness^  but  the  darkness  admitted  it 

Oiot^  T8  ^Ui  £V  Ttj  iTKortx  <Pxivh'  3^  })  c-KoTix  dvro  a  KocreXxZiv.  E.  T. 
The  light  shineth  in  darkness^  and  the  darkness  comprehended 
it  not.  Nothing  is  a  more  distinguishing  particularity  of  this 
writer's  style,  than  the  confounding  of  the  tenses.  It  is  evident, 
from  the  connection  of  these  clauses,  that  the  tense  ought  to  be 
the  same  in  both.  And  though  it  might  admit  some  defence  that, 
in  clauses  connected  as  those  in  the  text,  the  first  should  be  ex. 
•pressed  in  the  past,  and  the  second  in  the  present,  the  reverse  is^ 
surely,  on  the  principles  of  grammar,  indefensible.  I  have  em- 
ployed the  past  time  in  both,  as  more  suitable  io  the  strain  of 
the  context.  I  think  also  it  makes  a  clearer  sense ;  inasmuch  is 
the  passage  alludes  to  the  reception  which  Jesus  Christ,  here 
called  the  light,  met  with,  whilst  he  abode  upon  the  earth,  and 
the  mistakes  of  all  his  countrymen  (the  disciples  themselves  not 
excepted)  in  regard  to  his  office  and  character. 


388  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

9,  The  true  light  zsas  he  -xho — Hv  to  (^u^  it>^tmv  'a — E.  T. 
That  teas  the  true  light  zchich — When  this  verse,  in  the  origi- 
nal, is  compared  with  the  foregoing,  it  appears,  upon  the  first 
glance,  to  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  it  :  verse  8th,  ««  r,v  £>£.«- 
)i(^ro  <poji; ;  Terse  9th,  iiv  ro  (pa^.  As  if  we  should  say,  in  Eng  that 

man  teas  not  the  light He  teas  the  light.     But,  on  attending 

more  closely,  we  find  that,  in  verse  8th,  £x«v(^,  referring  to  John 
the  Baptist,  is  the  subject  of  the  proposition  ;  whereas,  in  verse 
9th,  TO  (pui  is  the  subject.  In  this  view,  there  is  a  perfect  con- 
sistency between  the  two  assertions,  as  they  relate  to  different 
subjects.  For  the  greater  perspicuity,  1  have  rendered  what  is 
affirmed  of  the  true  light,  verse  9th,  he  zcho  coming^  not  that 
zthich  coming,  though  this  is  the  more  literal  version.  My  rea- 
son is,  because,  in  the  following  verses,  this  light  is  spoken  of 
always  as  a  person.  Now,  the  best  place  for  introducing  this 
change  of  manner,  is  doubtless  that  wherein  an  explanation  is 
purposely  given  of  the  phrase  re  ^«5  ra  xX-,}6ivov.  And  that  there  is 
such  a  change  of  manner  in  the  original,  is  manifest.  Thn<:  the 
pronoun  referring  to  <pci)i,  verse  5th,  is  ccvro,  in  the  neuter;  but, 
after  the  explanation  given,  verse  9th,  we  find  in  verses  10th, 
11th,  and  12th,  «t/ro»,  in  the  masculine. 

^  f'Vho,  coming  into  the  zvorld,  enlighteneth  everij  man,  'o  ^u- 
T<^«  -xMrcit  xtS^uTfov  e^x^f^svov  «?  rev  xoTfMV.  E.  T.  J'Vhirh  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  zsorld.  Vul.  Quw  illuminat  om~ 
nem  hominem  venientem  in  hunc  mundum.  I  have  observed 
(Diss.  XII.  p.  I.  §  -2.)  that  the  word  tp)cof^mv,  in  this  place,  is 
equivocal,  as  it  may  be  understood  to  agree  either  w  ith  ipu<;  or  with 
av^^wTTov.  As  the  ambiguity  could  not  well  be  preserved  in  Eng. 
I  have  preferred  the  former  method  of  rendering.  Most  modern 
translators,  Itn.  Fr.  and  Ger.  as  well  as  ours,  have,  with  the 
Vul.  preferred  the  latter.  The  former  way  has  been  adopted  by 
Cas.  and  Leo  de  Juda,  in  La ;  by  L.  CI.  and  Beau,  in  Fr. ;  by 
the  An.  translator  and  Dod.  in  Eng.  The  reasons  which  deter- 
mined my  choice,  are  the  following  :  1st,  'o  e^;»io^£vC^  «5  fav  kof. 
jitov,  is  a  periphrasis  by  which  the  Messiah  was  at  that  time  com- 
monly denoted  [as  ch.  vi.  14.  xviii.  37.].  2dly,  He  is  in  this 
Gospel  once  and  again  distinguished  as  the  light  that  cometh 
into  the  world.  Thus,  ch.  iii.  19.  Now  this  is  the  condem- 
nation, that  the  light  (t«  ipui)  is  come  into  the  world  : — ch.  xii. 
46.     /  am  come  a  light  into  the  world.     3dly,  I  do  not  find. 


ciM.  S.  JOHN.  389 

on  the  othfir  hand,  that  tp^of^'-^'^  «?  Kotr/MV,  who  cometh  mto 
the  world,  is  ever  employed  bv  the  sacred  writers  as  an  addition 
to  Truer,  uv6pM7r(^y  every  man.  I  am  far  from  pretending  that 
words,  not  absolutely  necessary,  are  not  sometimes  used  in 
Scripture  to  render  the  expression  more  forcible.  But  it  must 
beallowed  to  have  weight  in  the  present  case,  that  a  phrase,  which 
nevpr  occurs  in  the  application  that  suits  the  common  version,  is 
familiar  in  the  application  that  suits  the  version  given  here. 
4thly,  The  meaning  conveyed  in  this  version  appears  more  con- 
sonant to  fact  than  the  other.  To  say  that  the  Messiah,  by 
coming  into  the  world,  llghteth  every  man,  is,  in  my  apprehen- 
sion, no  move  than  to  say  that  he  has,  by  his  coming,  rendered 
the  spiritual  light  of  his  Gospel  accessible  to  all,  without  dis- 
tinction, who  choose  to  be  guided  by  it.  The  other,  at  least, 
seems  to  imply,  that  every  individual  has  in  fact  been  enlighten- 
ed by  him.  Markland  observes  (Bowyer's  conjectures),  that  if 
i^y^ofA.iva')  agreed  with  ctvdpuTrov,  it  would  have  probably  had  the 
article,  and  been  rov  e^xof/.aciv.  But  on  this  1  do  not  lay  stress ; 
for  though  the  remark  is  fouiulod  in  the  Gr.  idiom,  such  minute 
circumstances  are  not  always  minded  by  the  Evangelists, 

11.  He  came  to  his  own  home.,  and  his  ok ii  family  did  not 
receive  him^  «5  tx  i^ia  ^jA^f,  x^  ii  i^toi  otvrov  a  ttcc^cXx^ov.  E.  T.  He 
came  unto  his  own.,  and  his  ozon  received  him  not.  The  E.  T. 
is  right,  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  not  so  explicit  as  the  original. 
The  distinction  made  by  the  author  between  tx  ihx  and  oi  i^ioi, 
is  overlooked  by  the  interpreter.  As  by  that  distinction  the 
country  of  Judea,  and  the  people  of  the  Jews,  are  moreexpress- 
ly  marked,  I  have  thought  it  worthy  of  being  retained.  For 
a  similar  phrase  to  «s  "rx  t^ix.,  see  L.  ii.  49.  N.  Though  rx  iS'ix 
commonly  means  home,  this  is  not  always  to  be  understood 
strictly  for  one^s  own  house.  A  man  naturally  considers  his 
country,  when  he  is  at  a  distance  from  it,  as  his  home,  and  his  V 
countrymen,  SiS  those  o(h\s  family.     Diss.  XII.  P.  IV.  §  8. 

12,  13.  Children  of  God,  who  derive  their  birth  not  front 
blood.  That  is,  children  by  a  generation  spiritual  and  divine, 
which  has  nothing  in  common  with  natural  generation. 

14.   The  word  became  incarnate,  o  Asy©-  c-x^^'cyevero.     E.  T. 
The  word  was  made  Jlesh.     In  the  language  of  the  synagogue, 
vor.  IV,  49 


.190  NOTES  ON  cii.  i'. 

the  term  o-as^l  was  so  often  employed  to  denote  a  human  beings 
that  the  Evangelist's  exprpssion  would  not  sound  so  harshly  in  the 
ears  of  those  accustomed  to  (ha(  idiom,  as  the  literal  version  of  the 
words  does  in  ours.  Besides,  zaas  made  does  not  entirol}  cor- 
respond to  eycvere  as  used  here,  being  a  translation  rather  of  the 
La.  factum  est,  than  of  the  Gr.  I  have  for  these  reasons  pre- 
ferred the  phrase  became  incarnate,  which,  if  it  does  not  so  much 
trace  the  letter  of  the  original  as  the  common  rendering  does,  is 
closer  to  the  sense,  and  sufficiently  simple  and  intelligible. 
This  expression.  The  zcord  became  mcarnate  has  been  thought 
by  some,  not  implausibly,  to  have  been  pointed  by  the  Evange- 
list against  the  error  of  the  Docctte,  who  denied  the  human  na- 
ture of  Christ,  supposifig  him  to  have  been  a  man  only  in  ap- 
pearance; and  the  expression,  The  zcord  uas  God,  v.  1,  to  have 
been  pointed  against  the  error  o''  the  Kbionites,  who  denied  his 
divine  nature,  affirming  that  he  was  no  more  than  a  man. 

^  Sojourned,  ca-KtimTcv.  E,  T.  Dwelt.  Vul.  Ar.  Er.  Zu.Cas. 
Habitavit.  Be.  Commoratus  est.  Most  foreign  versions  follow 
the  Vul.  An.  Had  hix  tabernacle.  Dod.  Pitched  his  taberna- 
cle. Wes.  and  Wy.  Tabernacled.  The  rest  follow  the  common 
version.  The  primitive  signification  of  the  verb  o-joivou,  from 
a-Ki}v>:  tent  or  tabernacle,  is,  doubtless,  to  pitch  a  tent,  or  drcelf 
in  a  tent.  But  words  come  insensibly  to  deviate  from  their  first 
signitication.  This  has  evidently  happened  to  the  verb  in  ques- 
tion. As  a  tent,  from  its  nature,  must  be  a  habitation  of  but 
short  continuance,  the  verb  formed  from  it  would  quickly  come, 
to  signify  to  reside  for  a  little  time,  more  as  a  sojourner  than  as 
an  inhabitant.  This  is  well  deduced  by  Phavorinus,  o-KTi^t),  v  wfao-- 
K»i^(^  itctroiKix'  o-xfjv««.  To  7rp^  x.xipoy  eiK>i<riv  TroiHf*.*! ,  which  exactly 
suits  the  sense  of  commoror,  I  sojourn.  It  must  be  owned  also 
(as  may  be  evinced  from  unexceptionable  authorities),  that  the 
verb  means  sometimes  simply  to  dwell,  \n  the  largest  sense,  with- 
out any  limitation  from  the  nature,  or  the  duration,  of  the  dwell- 
ing. Thus  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  are  called  (Rev.  xii.  12. 
and  xiii.  6.)  it  iv  a^xvoti  a-jcrivavrei;.  Nay,  which  is  still  stronger, 
it  is  made  use  of  to  express  God's  abode  with  his  people  after 
the  resurrection,  which  is  always  represented  as  eternal.  Rev. 
xxi.  3.  But  we  may  be  the  less  surprised  at  this,  when  we  con- 
sider that  (Txjjvjj  itself  is  used  (Lu.  xvi.  9.)  for  a  permanent  habi- 
tation, and  joined  wiih  the  epithet  xtan^.     See  N.  3.  on  thaj 


tm.  r.  S.  JOHN.  391 

Terse.  We  cannot,  therefore  deny  that  the  manner  wherein  the 
word  is  rendered  by  the  Vul.  and  the  E.  T.  is  entirely  defensi- 
ble. As  the  term,  however,  admits  either  inlerpretation  ;  and 
as  the  word  for  to  dwell  commonly  used  in  this  Gospel,  and  evea 
in  this  chapter,  is  different ;  and  as,  considering  the  shortness  of 
our  Lord's  life,  especially  of  his  miriis.ry,  he  may  be  said  more 
properly  to  have  sojourned  than  to  have  dicelt  amongst  us  ;  I 
have  preferred  Be.'s  interpretation. 

15.  I  look  upon  this  verse  as  a  parenthesis,  in  which  the  tes.- 
fimony  of  John  is  anticipated,  verse  16th  being  in  immediate 
Connection  with  verse  14th.  It  is  for  this  reason  I  have  not  only 
enclosed  verse  15th  in  hooks,  but  introduced  it  by  the  words 
it  zzas^  which  render  the  connection  closer.  This  will  appear 
more  evidently  from  what  is  to  he  remarked  on  verse  16th. 

'  /*  preferred  to  me^  ef^TpoT.lev  f^  ysyoviv.  Vul.  Ante  me  fac 
fns  est.  Er.  and  Zu.  Antecessit  me.  Cas.  Ante  me  fuit-  Be. 
Antepositus  eat  mihi.  Dio.  JVPe  antiposto.  G.  F.  Est  pre/ere 
a  moi.  L.  CI.  Est  plus  que  mot.  Beau,  ]\V est  prefer e.  Ger. 
to?  mix  getoeisen  igt.  E.  T.  l)od  Hey.  Wes.  VVy.  Wor.Js  pre- 
ferred before  me.  An.  JVas  before  mc.  There  are  but  two 
meanings  in  all  the  variety  of  expressions  employed  in  translat- 
ing this  passage.  Some  make  it  express  priority  in  time,  others 
pre-eminence  in  dignity.  With  the  former  we  should  undoubt- 
edly class  the  Vul  and  yet  most  of  those  who  have  translated 
from  it,  must  be  numbered  among  the  latter.  Thus  the  transla. 
tors  of  P.  R.  and  Sa.  say,  A  etc  prrfere  a  moi.  Si.  Est  au  des^ 
sus  de  moi.  But,  though  the  Vul.  and  the  other  Latin  transla- 
tors, Be.  alone  excepted,  have  adopted  the  first  method  ;  all  the 
translators  into  modern  languages  I  am  acquainted  with,  Romish 
or  Protestant  (except  Lu.  the  An.  and  the  Rh.),  have  followed 
Be.  in  preferring  the  second.  Were  I  here  translating  the  Vul. 
I  should  certainly  say  with  the  interpreters  of  Rheims,ri?o,y  wade 
before  iwe,  and  should  be  ready  to  employ  Si.'s  language  B'^'ainst 
himself,  accusing  him  (with  better  reason  than  he  has  accused 
Be.  and  the  P.  R.  interpreters)  of  giving  for  a  version,  a  mere 
comment  which  ought  to  have  beeVi  put  in  the  margin.  But,  as 
I  do  not  translate  from  the  V'ul.  the  case  is  different.  Wh.  in. 
deed,  a  commentator  of  known  and  deserved  reputation,  thinks 
the  proper  import  of  ty.7rpo(r^a  to  be  before  in  time,  and  renders 
ihe  Gr.  expression  is  before  me.     "  I  find  no  instan -e,'  savf 


392  '       NOTES  ON  ch.  j 

he,  "  where  if^Tr^atria  /«,»  yeyonv  signifies,  he  was  preferred  before 
*'  me,  and  therefore  rather  choose  to  retain  the  proper  import  of 
"  the  words."  Maldonat,  another  commentator,  justly  celebrat- 
ed for  critical  abilities  and  acuteness,  is  of  an  opinion  directly 
opposite  to  Wh.'s.  He  athrms,  that  in  Scripture  sfjinrpoTiiv  never 
expresses  priority  of  time.  "  Ut  multi  notaverunt,  non  dixit 
"  TTfa  ;M.s,  sed  ef^TT^oirSiv  i^Lhi ;  praspositio  autem  ift,7rp«T6ev  nusquam  in 
"  sacris  literis  reperitur  tempus  significare."  Be.  appears  to 
have  thought  so  also  when  he  said,  "  Ego  istos  libenter  rogem, 
"  ut  vel  unum  ex  Novi  Testament!  libris  exemplum  proferant 
"  in  quo  eft,7r^oir6:v  tempos  declaret."  Opinions  so  contrary  can- 
not be  both  true  ;  but  both  may  be  false,  and  I  suspect  are  so. 
That  if^TpocrSiv  in  the  New  Testament  is  sometimes  expressive  of 
time,  may  be  argued  from  these  words  of  the  Baptist,  ch.  iii.  28. 
I  am  not  the  Messiah,  but  am  sent  before  him,  ef<.7rpoT6ev  eKH^a. 
There  is  at  the  same  time,  it  must  be  confessed,  some  relation  to 
place  here  also.  The  word  iy.7s-^o<r^iv,  in  the  most  common  ac- 
ceptation, answers  to  the  Latin  coram,  not  seldom  to  prce,  more 
rarely  to  ante.  In  the  sense  of  preference  or  superiority,  it  is, 
doubtless,  employed  by  the  Seventy,  Gen.  xlviii.  20.  f^jjjcev  rav 
Efp^xif^  ef^TF^oc-B-ev  m  Mavxc-rs,  He  set  Ephraim  before  Manasseh  : 
for  though  it  maybe  said  that  Ephraim  was  the  first  named,  it  is 
only  the  preference  implied  as  given  to  the  younger  brother, . 
which  seems  to  have  been  regarded  by  their  father  Joseph.  Chry- 
sostom  also,  and  other  Gr.  expositors,  interpret  in  the  same  man. 
ner  the  words  in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Add  to  this 
that,  in  those  places  of  the  Gospel,  which  are  pretty  numerous, 
where  priority  in  time  alone  is  referred  to,  the  word  is  never  e/*,. 
7rpofs-3-£v,  but  either  tt^o  or  tt^iv,  with  the  genitive  of  the  noun,  or 
the  infinitive  of  the  verb.  See  in  this  Gospel  (amongst  other 
places)  ch.  i.  48.  iv.  49.  v.  7.  viii.  58.  Another  argument  in  fa. 
vour  of  this  interpretation  is,  that  priority  in  time  appears  to  be 
marked  by  the  succeeding  clause  7rpwr<^  f^a  ;jy,  to  be  considered 
immediately.  Now  to  give  the  same  meaning  to  both  clauses, 
is  to  represent  the  Evangelist  as  recurring  to  a  sophism  which 
logicians  call  idem  per  idem,  that  is,  proving  a  thing  by  itself, 
repeated  with  only  some  variety  in  the  expression  ;  insomuch 
that  his  reasoning  would  amount  to  no  more  than  this,  lie  was 
before  me,  because  he  was  before  me. 


cir.  t.  S.  JOHN.  39S 

^  For  he  was  before  tne,  in  tt^ut®^  ua  jjv.  Yul.  Er.  Zu.  Be. 
Quia  prior  me  erat.  Cas.  Quippe  qui  prior  me  sit.  The  Sy. 
(though,  in  the  former  clause,  the  expression  may  be  thought 
ambiguous)  is  clearly  to  the  same  purpose  with  the  aforesaid 
versions  n  this.  In  the  same  manner  also  Dio.  Lu.  and  the  Fr. 
translators,  except  Beau,  who  says,  Parce  qu''il  est  plus  grand 
que  moi.  With  this  agrees  Hey.  For  he  is  my  superior.  The 
other  Eng.  versions  concur  with  the  E.  T.  The  word  -A-p^r^  is 
no  doubt  a  superlative,  and  signifies  not  only  first  in  time,  but 
often  also  first  in  dignity  and  rank.  When  it  is  used  in  this 
way,  it  is  commonly  followed,  like  other  superlatives,  by  tiie 
genitive  plural  of  that  which  is  the  subject  of  comparison  ;  or, 
if  the  subject  be  expressed  by  a  collective  noun,  by  the  genitive 
singular.  Thus  (Mr.  xii.  29.)  Tirparvt  ts-xo-uv  rm  aroXm  is  the  chief 
of  all  the  commandments^  (Acts  xxviii.  17.)  ts?  <)»t«s  7«i/  la^xim 
w^«T«5,  the  chief  of  the  Jews.  In  like  manner  (Mr.  vi.  21.)  oi 
TT^uToi  TYic,  r£«A<Aec(««,  and  (L.  xix.  47.)  oi  Trparot  m  Xxa ;  for  A(»(^- 
is  a  collective  noun,  so  also  is  r«A'Aa6<«  the  name  of  a  country, 
when  used  by  a  trope  for  the  inhabitants.  But  in  the  expression 
in  qupstion,  there  is  neither  collective  nor  genitive  plural ;  Tr^ur^ 
cannot  therefore  be  rightly  understood  as  a  superlative.  But  is 
there  any  similar  example  in  the  sacred  writers  ?  There  is  one 
similar  in  this  very  Gospel  (xv.  18.),  if^s  Trpurov  Cf^wy  lit-s/^in-inciv, 
concerning  the  meaning  of  which,  though  the  construction  is 
unusual,  there  has  hardly  been,  till  very  lately,  a  diversity  of 
opinion  amongst  interpreters.  These  have  generally  agreed  in 
rendering  the  passage,  it  hated  me  before  it  hated  you.  The 
sense  which  has  been  put  on  the  word  w^»t(^,  and  so  strenu- 
ously defended  by  Dr.  Larduer,  shall  be  considered  in  the  note 
on  that  place.  Till  then  I  shall  take  it  for  granted  that  what  has 
hitherto  been  the  commonest  explanation  of  the  term,  is  also  the 
clearest.  Now,  by  every  principle  of  sound  criticism,  we  ought 
to  explain  the  doubtful  by  the  clear,  especially  as  both  examples, 
which  are  all  the  examples  that  Scripture  afl'ords  us,  are  from 
the  same  pen  ;  and  as  the  passage  thus  explained  yields  a  sense 
which  is  both  just  and  apposite,  there  being  at  least  an  apparent 
reference  to  the  information  he  had  given  us  concerning  the  Xoy^^y 
the  word.,  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter. 

16.  Of  his  fulness  we  all  have  received,  even  grace  for  his 


394  NOTES  ON  cii.  i. 

%«/»t'^.  E.  T.  Of  his  fulness  have  all  zse  received,  and  grace 
for  grace.  The  context  shows  that  the  possessive  pronoun  etvry, 
his,  refers  to  o  AsyS^,  the  word,  which,  he  says,  became  incar- 
nate. But  what  is  the  import  of  the  clause  grace  for  grace  ?  Is 
it  that  we  receive  sjrace,  in  return  for  the  grace  we  give?  So  says 
L.  Cl.  availing  himself  of  an  ambigui'y  in  the  Gr.  word  X'^F'^y- 
■which  (like  grace  in  Fr.)  signifies  not  only  a  favour  bestowed, 
but  thanks  returned  ;  antl  maintaining  that  the  sense  is,  that  God 
gives  more  grace  to  those  who  are  thankful  for  that  formerly  re- 
ceivH  ;  a  position  which,  however  just,  it  requires  an  extraor- 
dinary <iirn  of  imagination  to  discover  in  this  passage.  Is  it,  as 
Dod  Wes.  and  Wy.  render  it,  grace  upon  grace,  that  is,  grace 
added  to  grace?  I  should  not  dislike  this  interpretation,  if  this 
meaning  of  the  preposition  uvrt  in  Scripture,  were  well  support- 
ed. It  always  there  denotes,  if  I  mistake  not,  instead  of ,  an. 
swering  to.,  or  in  return  for.  Is  it  a  mere  pleonasm  ?  Does  it 
mean  (as  Grotius  would  have  it)  grace  gratuitous  ?  I  do  not 
say  that  such  pleonastic  expressions  are  unexampled  in  sacred 
writ;  hu^  I  do  say,  tliat  this  senso  glvfii  to  the  idiom  is  unex. 
ampled.  The  word  in  such  cases  is  Sm^exv,  as  Rom.  iii.  4.  /!^tx.eci. 
Uf/.'.vot  ^u^eetv  tyj  ccvra  ^xpiTi.  If,  instead  of  giving  scope  to  fancy, 
we  attend  to  the  context  and  the  construction  of  (he  words,  we 
shall  not  need  to  wander  so  far  in  quest  of  the  meaning.  In 
verse  l4th  we  are  informed,  (ha*  the  word  became  incarnate,  and 
sojourned  amongst  us  full  of  grace  and  truth.  It  is  plain  that 
the  15th  verse,  containing  the  Baptist's  declaration,  must  be  un- 
derstood as  a  parenthesis.  And  it  actually  is  understood  so  by 
all  expositors;  inasmuch  as  they  make  etvrs  here  refer  to  Aey®-* 
in  verse  14th.  The  Evangelist  resuming  the  subject,  which,  (for 
the  sake  of  inserting  John's  testimony),  he  had  interrupted,  tells 
us  that  all  we  his  disciples,  particularly  his  apostles,  have  re. 
ceived  of  his  fulness.  But  of  what  was  he  full  ?  It  had  been 
said  expressly,  that  he  \\asfull  of  grace.  When,  therefore,  the 
historian  brings  this  additional  clause  concerning  grace  in  ex- 
planation of  the  former  (for  on  all  hands  the  conjunction  >^  is 
here  admitted  to  be  explanatory),  is  it  not  manifestly  his  inten- 
tion to  inform  us,  that  of  every  grace  wherewith  he  was  filled, 
his  disciples  received  a  share?  The  pronoun  uvra,  which  occurs 
after  zrXii^uftar®^,  must  be  understood  as  repeated  after  x*?''^^-' 
the  omission  whereof  in  such  cases  is  so  common  as  scarcely  to 


cH.  I.  S.  JOHN.  395 

be  considered  as  an  ellipsis.  I  sha'l  give  a  few  similar  examples 
out  of  many  which  might  be  produced,  M^  xii.  50.  xvt(^  /a-h 
x$c\(p^,  y^  aJV/i^j},  }^  i^i}Tii3  e^i'  where  the  pronoun  (t*«  is  prelixed 
to  the  first  noun,  and  left  to  be  supplied  by  the  sense  before  the 
other  two.  1  Tim.  vi.  1.  <'v«  jttjj  r«  eva/^x  m  Qm  t^  jj'  h^aTx-xXioc. 
^)\ctT^ijfA.yjrcn  ;  vhere  the  sense  requires  the  pronoun  ayrs,  or  the 
repetition  of  m  Qua  after  ^i^y,rx.ctX'cc  :  and  to  give  one  example 
from  this  Gospel,  ch.  vi.  5*2.  tta'^  ^wxtxi  yV'^  jj^kv  ^avxt  rtjv  o-xpxx 
<P*yc-iv ;  where,  if  we  do  not  supply  from  the  sense  cevm  after 
<i-xp>cx^  we  shall  give  a  very  diHerent  moaning  to  the  question,  and 
one  perfectly  unsuited  to  the  context.  But  to  return  to  the 
words  under  examination  ;  when  the  immediate  connection  be- 
tvveen  the  16th  and  the  14th  verses  is  attended  to,  the  meaning  of 
the  clause  is  equally  obvious  as  that  of  any  of  the  foregoing  ex. 
amples.  The  word  incarnate,  says  the  Apostle,  resided  amongst 
us  full  cf  grace  and  truth  j  and  of  his  fulness  zse  all  have  receiv- 
ed,  even  grace  for  his  grace  ;  that  is,  of  every  grace  or  celestial 
gift,  conferred  above  measure  upon  him,  his  disciples  have  re- 
ceived a  portion,  according  to  their  measure.  If  there  should 
remain  a  doubt,  whether  this  vvere  the  sense  of  the  passage,  the 
words  immediately  following  seem  calculated  to  remove  it.  For 
the  law  zcas  given  bij  Moses,  the  grace  and  the  truth  came  by 
Jesus  Christ.  Here  the  Evangelist  intimates  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  as  truly  the  channel  of  divine  grace  to  his  disciples,  as  Moses 
had  been  of  the  knowledge  of  God's  law  to  the  Israelites.  I  am 
happy  to  find  that  in  this  criticism  I  concur  with  the  learned 
Dr.  Clarke. 

17.  The  grace  and  the  truth,  s?  X'*'?"^  *b  ^'  ^■'t'}^'^*-  E.  T. 
grace  and  truth.  The  article  in  this  place  ought  by  no  means  to 
be  omitted.  These  nouns  are  often  used  emphatically  as  names 
for  the  gospel  dispensation;  and  are  here  contrasted  as  such  to 

0  v«jM.(^  the  la:s,  the  name  given  to  the  Mosaic  economy.  'H  X'^?'^ 
sometimes  with,  and  sometimes  without,  an  addition,  is  thus,  if 

1  mistake  not,  employed  in  these  and  other  passages,  which  the 
reader  may  consult  at  his  leisure  ;  Acts,  xiii.  43.  xx.  32.  2  Cor, 
vi.  I.  Gal.  ii.  21.  v.  4,  2  Thess.  i.  12.  Tit.  ii.  11.  1  Pet.  v.  12.; 
and  ^  »x?ieHcc  in  the  following,  J.  \iii.   32.   xvi.   13.  xvii.    17. 

2  Cor.  iv.  2.  xiii.  8.  Gal.  iii.  1.  v.  7.  Eph.  iv.  21.  2  Thess.  ii. 
12.  1  Tim.  iii,  15.  iv.  3.  2  Tim.  ii.  15.  iii.  8.  iv.  4.  Tit.  i.  14. 
Heb.  X.  26.  Ja.  v.  19.  1  Pet.  i.  22.  2  Pet.  ii.  2.  1  T.  ii.  21.  2  T. 
?.   3  J.  8. 


396  NOTES  ON  ch.'x, 

18.  That  is  m  the  bosom  of  the  Father^  ch.  iii,  13.  N. 

19.  No7£i  this  is  the  testimony  of  John.  Kxi  a.vnj  £s-(»  ^  f^n^, 
Tvftd  Tn  leaxnif,  A  little  attention  to  the  words  in  the  original 
will  convince  the  judicious  reader  that  there  ought  to  be  a  full 
stop  here,  and  that  this  ought  to  be  read  as  a  distinct  sentence. 
The  next  sentence,  which  includes  the  rest  of  the  19th  verse,  and 
the  whole  of  the  20th,  derives  both  simplicity  and  perspicuity 
from  this  manner  of  dividing. 

21.  IVho  then  9  r<sv;  E.  T.  fVhat  then?  Between  the  two 
questions,  fVhat  art  thou  ?  and  Who  art  thou  ?  put  on  such  an 
occasion  as  the  present,  by  such  men  as  the  messengers  of  the 
Pharisees,  to  such  a  person  as  John,  there  is  no  imaginable  dif- 
ference, in  respect  of  meaning.  Accordingly  the  same  answer  is 
equally  adapted  to  either  question.  But  there  is  in  our  language 
an  essential  dilference  in  meaning  between  the  words  What  then  ? 
and  Who  then  ?  The  former,  though  it  would  be  readily  deno- 
minated a  literal  version  of  the  Gr.  n  «v,  conveys  to  our  mind 
a  sense  totally  different ;  the  latter,  with  an  inconsiderable  dif- 
ference in  point  of  form,  entirely  coincides  in  import  with  the  ori- 
ginal expression  ;  for  in  such  cases,  as  wasjust  now  observed,  a'/io^ 
and  zsho  are  equivalent.  But  in  combining  words  into  a  phrase, 
the  result  is  often  different  from  what  we  should  expect  from  the 
■words,  of  which  the  phrase  is  combined,  considered  severally. 
And  this  is  one  of  the  many  reasons  which  render  a  literal  ver- 
sion often  a  very  unjust  as  well  as  obscure  version.  As  to  the 
point  we  are  here  concerned  with,  what  then  ?  has  acquired  an 
idiomatical  acceptation  which  answers  exactly  to  the  Fr.  Qu^ 
inferez  vous  de  la?  What  would  you  infer  from  that?  than 
■which  nothing  could  be  more  foreign  to  the  purpose.  I  am  sur- 
prised that  all  the  later  Eng.  versions,  except  the  An.  who 
omits  the  question  entirely,  have  here  implicitly  followed  the 
E.  T.  The  foreign  translators  have  in  general  done  justice  to 
the  sense. 

2  Art  thou  Elijah  ?  He  said,  I  am  not.  There  is  here  an 
apparent  contradiction  to  the  words  of  our  Lord  concerning  John, 
Mt.  xi.  14.  This  is  the  Elijah  that  was  to  come.  But  Jesus,  in 
the  passage  quoted,  evidently  refers  to  the  words  of  Malachi,  his 
purpose  being  to  inform  his  disciples  that  John  was  Elijah,  in 
the  meaninjT  of  that  Prophet,  and  that  the  Prophet's  prediction 


CH.  1. 


S.  JOHN.  397 


wasaccomplishpd  in  the  Baptist,  inasmuch  as  he  came  in  the  spirit 
and  power  of  Elijah.  But  when  the  question  was  proposed  to 
John,  the  laws  of  truth  required  that  he  should  answer  it,  accord- 
ing to  the  sense  wherein  the  words  were  used  by  the  proposers.  He 
could  not  otherwise  have  been  vindicated  from  the  charge  of 
equivocating.  The  intended  purport  of  their  question,  he  well 
knew,  was,  whether  he  acknowledged  that  he  was  individually 
the  Prophet  Elijah  returned  from  heaven  to  sojourn  again  upon 
the  earth  ;  for,  in  this  manner  they  explained  the  prediction.  To 
this  be  could  not,  without  falsehood,  answer  in  the  affirma- 
tive. 

3  Art  thou  the  prophet  ?  «  Trf/^ijrTu  n  <rv  ;  E.  T.  Art  thou  that 
prophet?  The  latter  expression  is  evidently  unsuitable  to  our 
idiom,  unless  some  prophet  had  been  named  in  the  preceding  part 
of  the  conversation,  to  whom  the  pronoun  that  could  refer.  In 
this  our  translators  have  too  implicitly  followed  Be.  who  says, 
Es  til  propheta  ille  ?  Not  that  1  condemn  Be.  for  this  version. 
I  think,  on  the  contrary,  that  as  the  article  was  quite  necessary 
here,  and  this  was  the  only  way  of  supplying  it  in  La.  he  did 
right.  Accordingly  Er.  and  Leo  de  Juda  had  done  the  same  be- 
fore him.  But  there  was  no  occasion  for  this  me<hod  in  Eng. 
■which  has  articles.  I  own,  at  the  same  time,  that  in  the  way 
wherein  the  question  is  expressed  in  the  Vul.  and  in  Cas.the  most 
natural  version  would  be.  Art  thou  a  prophet?  which  is  quite 
a  different  question  :  nay,  I  am  persuaded  that,  if  this  had  been 
the  question,  the  Baptist's  answer  would  not  have  been  in  the 
negative.  Our  Lord,  we  know,  calls  him  (Mt.  xi.  11.)  a  pro. 
phetthan  zchom  there  had  not  arisen  a  grta^er  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation.  Besides,  the  Gr.  is  quite  explicit,  and  the  article 
here  perfectly  well  supported.  It  is  also  repeated  with  the  word 
9rfa^j)r>,5,  verse  25th,  and  of  the  best  authority,  notwithstanding 
the  dissent  of  Heinsius  and  Mill.  Yet  some  translators,  even 
from  the  Gr.  have  rendered  the  question  indefinitely.  Of  this 
number  are  Lu.  and  Beau,  among  foreigners,  and  of  Eng.  trans- 
lators the  An.  Dod.  and  Wor.  To  me  it  is  evident,  both  from 
■what  is  said  here,  and  from  other  hints  in  the  N.  T.  that  there 
was  at  that  time  a  general  expectation  in  the  people,  of  some 
great  prophet,  beside  Elijah,  who  was  soon  to  appear,  and  who 
was  well  known  by  the  emphatical  appellation  the  prophet,  with.. 

VOL.    IV.  50 


398  NOTES  ON  ch.  i. 

out  any  addition  or  description.     In  ch.  ti.  40,  41.  the  prophet 
is  distinguished  from  the  Messiah,  as  he  is  here  from  Elijah. 

23.  /  am  he  Tzhose  voice  proclaimeth  in  the  wilderness^  'Eyu 
<Pmvj  i^eavroi  ev  rtj  s§y,uM.  E.  T.  /  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in 
the  leilderness.  In  such  declarations  the  general  purport  is 
alone  regarded  by  the  speaker  ;  the  words  ought  not,  therefore, 
to  be  too  grammatically  interpreted.  John,  instead  of  giving  a 
description  of  his  own  character  and  office,  refers  those  who 
questioned  him,  to  the  words  of  the  Prophet  fsaiah,  in  which 
they  would  find  it.  What  he  here  says  of  himself,  is  to  be  un. 
derstood  no  otherwise  than  we  understand  what  Mt,  says  of  him, 
ch.  iii.  3.  Interpretations  to  be  formed  from  the  manifest  scope, 
not  from  the  syntactic  structure,  of  a  seritence,  are  not  unfrequent 
in  scripture.  Thus,  Rev.  i.  12.  E7r£s-pe4»  QXiTrnv  mv  f»v>}v,  lite- 
rally, /  turned  to  see  the  voice — The  like  may  be  observed  in 
some  of  the  parables,  as  Mt.  xiii.  24.  and  45.  In  one  of  these 
places  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is,  according  to  the  scope  of  the 
passage,  compared  to  a  field;  but, according  to  the  letter,  to  the 
proprietor :  in  the  other  it  is  compared,  apparently  to  a  mer- 
chant, but  in  fact  to  a  pearl.  Several  other  instances  occur  in 
the  Gospels.  As  on  such  points,  the  genius  of  modern  languages 
is  more  fastidious  than  that  of  the  ancient,  it  would  savour  more 
of  the  superstitious  and  servile  spirit  of  the  synagogue,  or  of  the 
Kcixe^itXfx  of  an  Arias,  or  an  Aquila,  than  of  the  liberal  spirit  of 
our  religion,  to  insist  on  a  version  of  these  passages  scrupulously 
literal. 

28.  Bethany.  E.  T.  Bethabara.  In  the  common  Gr.  it  is 
"RuexQxpx.  But  the  MSS.  which  read  BnSavix,  are,  both  in  num- 
ber and  in  value,  more  than  a  counterpoise  to  those  in  which  we 
find  the  vulgar  reading.  Add  to  these  the  Vul.  the  Sax.  and  both 
the  Sy,  versions,  together  with  Nonnus'  Gr.  paraphrase  of  this 
Gospel,  which  is  entitled  to  be  put  on  the  footing  of  an  ancient 
translation.  Also  several  ancient  authors,  and  some  of  the  best 
editions,  read  so.  There  is  ground  to  think  that  the  change  of 
Bethany  into  Bethabara^  took  its  rise  from  a  conjecture  of  Ori- 
gen,  who,  because  its  situation  mentioned  here  does  not  suit  what 
is  said  of  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  and  his  sisters  lived,  changed 
it  into  Bethabara,  the  place  mentioned,  Judg.  vii.  24,  where  our 
translators  have  rendered  it  Beth-barah.     But  one  thing  is  cer. 


cH.  I.  S.  JOHN.  399 

tain,  that,  in  seyeral  instances,  the  same  name  was  given  to  dif- 
ferent places,  and  this  Bethany  seems  here  to  be  expressly  dis- 
tinguished from  another  of  the  name,  by  the  addition  w£^«»  ra 
lopSxva,  upon  the  Jordan.  It  adds  also  to  the  probability  of  the 
reading  here  adopted,  that  Bethany^  by  its  etymology,  signifies 
a  place  or  house  close  by  a  ferry. 

33.  I  should  not  have  known  him.  This  has  been  thought  by 
some  not  perfectly  consistent  with  what  L.  acquaints  us,  con- 
cerning the  connection  of  their  families,  and  particularly  with 
what  we  are  told,  M;.  iii.  14.  ;  where  we  find,  that  John,  when 
Jesus  came  to  him  to  be  baptized,  modestly  declined  the  office, 
and  freely  acknowledged  the  superiority  of  the  latter.  But 
there  is  no  al)snrdity  in  supposing  that  this  was  in  consequence 
of  what  the  B:^pt^st  knew  concerning  our  Lord's  personal  cha- 
racter, his  superior  wisdom  and  sanctity.  Nay,  he  might  have 
known  further,  that  he  was  a  Prophet,  and  highly  honoured  of 
God,  and  yet  not  have  known  or  even  suspected,  that  he  was  the 
Messiah,  till  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  his  baptism.  All 
that  is  affirmed  here  is,  that,  till  this  evidence  was  given  him,  he 
did  not  know  him  to  be  the  Messiah.  The  same  solution  of  this 
difficulty  is  given,  I  find,  by  Mr.  Palmer.  See  his  letter  prefix, 
ed  to  Priestley's  Harmony. 

41.  A  name  equivalent  to  Christ.,  o  ei-t  f*.e6£^f^v£voiu.s]>cv  o  X^iftf. 
E.  T.  Which  ?>,  being  interpreted.,  the  Christ.  In  all  the  best 
MSS.  and  editions,  the  article  in  Gr.  before  X^iro<;  is  wanting. 
As  the  intention  here  is  only  to  point  out  the  coincidence  of  the 
two  names,  we  must  be  sensible  that  it  was  not  necessary. 

43.  Cephas,  which  denofeth  the  same  as  Peter,  Kj}^«5  o  e^^tti^ 
isOtTxi  UsT^oi.  E.  T.  Ccjdias,  n-hich  is  by  interpretation  a  stone. 
I  have  put  which  denoteth  the  same  as  Peter,  in  a  different  cha- 
racter, as  the  words  of  the  historian,  and  not  of  our  Lord.  We 
ought  to  consider  that  this  Evangelist  wrote  his  Gospel  in  a  Gre- 
cian city  of  Asia  Minor,  and,  for  this  reason,  was  the  more  care- 
ful to  translate  into  Gr.  the  Heb.  or  Chal,  names,  given  for  a 
special  purpose,  whereof  they  were  expressive.  There  was  the 
greater  reason  for  doing  so  in  the  two  cases  occurring  in  this  and 
the  preceding  verse,  as  the  Greek  names  were  become  familiar  to 
the  Asiatic  converts,  who  were  unacquainted  with  the  Oriental 


40O  NOTES  ON  ch.  x. 

names.  The  sacred  writer  had  a  twofold  view  in  it ;  first,  to 
explain  the  import  of  the  name  ;  secondly,  to  prevent  his  readers 
from  mistaking  the  persons  spoken  of.  They  all  knew  who,  as 
well  as  what,  was  meant  by  Christos  ;  but  not  by  the  Heb.  word 
Messiah.  In  like  manner  they  knew  who  Avas  called  Peter .^  but 
might  very  readily  mistake  Cephas  for  some  other  person.  When 
a  significant  name  was  given  to  a  man  or  woman,  it  was  customa- 
ry to  translate  the  name,  when  he  or  she  was  spoken  of  in  a  dif- 
ferent tongue.  Thus,  Thomas  was  in  Gr.  Didymus  ;  and  Ta- 
hitha  was  Dorcas.  Now,  it  deserves  our  notice,  that  a  transla. 
tor  from  the  Gr.  can,  for  the  most  part,  answer  only  one  of  the 
two  purposes  above  mentioned.  The  Gr.  to  those  who  cannot 
read  it,  is  equally  unintelligible  with  the  Heb.  To  give  the  Gr. 
name,  therefore,  to  the  Eng.  reader,  is  not  to  explain  the  Heb. 
For  this  reason,  the  interpreter  ought  to  consider  which  of  the 
two  purposes  suits  best  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  to  be  di- 
rected, by  this  consideration,  in  his  version.  The  other  purpose 
he  may  supply  by  means  of  the  margin.  To  me  it  appears  of 
more  importance,  in  these  instances,  to  be  ascertained  of  the 
sameness  of  the  person  denominated  both  Messiah  and  Christ, 
and  also  of  him  called  Cephas  and  Peter,  than  to  know  that  the 
two  former  words  signify  anointed,  and  the  two  latter  rock.  I 
have,  therefore,  taken  the  method  adopted  by  the  Eng.  transla- 
tors as  to  the  former,  but  not  as  to  the  latter.  They  have  re- 
tained Christ  in  the  version,  and  put  anointed  on  the  margin. 
The  word  Petros  they  have  translated  a  stone.  The  same  way 
ought  certainly  to  have  been  followed  in  both.  As  far  as  I  can 
judge  of  the  scope  of  the  passage,  it  is  clearly  the  intention  of  the 
writer,  on  the  first  mention  of  someprincipal  persons  in  his  histo- 
ry, in  order  to  prevent  all  mistakes  that  may,  in  the  sequel,  arise 
about  them,  to  give  their  different  names  at  once,  with  this  inti- 
mation, that  they  are  of  the  same  import,  and  belong  to  the  same 
person.  Thus,  we  have  here,  in  one  verse,  all  the  names  hf 
which  this  Apostle  is  distinguished — S im or^,  ?,on  of  J ona,  Ce- 
phas, and  Peter.  Again,  if  the  sacred  penman  had  more  in  view, 
to  acquaint  us  with  the  signification  of  the  name,  than  to  prevent 
our  mistaking  the  person,  he  would  probably  have  translated  Ce- 
phas into  Gr.  TeTfu,  not  Tler^ei.  The  former  is  always  used  in 
the  N.  T.  and  ia  the  Sep.  for  a  rocky  and  never  the  latter.     I 


CH.    I. 


S.  JOHN.  *01 


acknowledge  that  TrsT^es,  in  Gr.  authors,  and  Trirpti,  are  synony. 
mous  ;  but,  in  the  use  of  the  sacred  writers,  Tltre^o^  is  invariably, 
and  5r;r  ct.  never,  a  proper  name.  Nay,  in  the  passage,  Mt.  xvi- 
18.  wherein  the  signification  of  the  word  is  pointed  out,  as  the 
reason  of  assigning  the  name,  the  word  is  changed  in  the  ex, 
planation  given — w  et  Ilerpoi;'  %m  tin  rat^Tjj  tij  vtr^x.  This  would 
not  have  been  done,  if  nsr^oi  had  ever  been  used  by  them  for  a 
rock.  Accordingly,  in  the  Sy.  version,  there  is  no  change  of 
the  word  ;  Cephas,  or  rather  Kepha,  serving  equally  for  both. 
The  change  was  evidently  made  in  the  Gr.  for  the  sake  of  the 
gender;  ^rirp^^  being  feminine,  was  not  a  suitable  name  for  a 
man.  The  word  Tlerpoi^  however,  being  preferred  by  the  Evan- 
gelist to  wfT^oe,  shows  evidently  that  it  was  more  his  view  to  in- 
dicate ilie  person,  than  to  explain  the  name.  So  the  author  of 
thr'  V•^\■  understood  it,  who  renders  the  words  (juod  interpreta, 
fur  Pr/rus^  not  pefra.  Let  It  be  observed  further,  that  this 
AjM^sMe  is  Mover  afterwards  named  by  this  Evangelist  Cephas^ 
hy^  alwivs  Peter.  Now,  in  consequence  of  excluding  that  name 
oi!^  of  this  verse,  the  very  purpose,  as  I  imagine,  of  John's  in- 
troducing' the  iiMPie  into  it,  is  defeated  ;  as,  from  this  Gospel  at 
least,  the  mere  Eng.  reader  would  not  discover,  when  he  hears 
afterwards  of  Peter,  that  it  was  the  same  person  whom  our  Sa- 
viour, on  tills  occasion,  denominated  Cephas.  It  must,  there- 
fore, be  more  eligible  to  preserve  the  names  in  the  version,  and 
give  their  import  in  the  margin,  than  conversely  ;  unless  we  will 
say,  that  it  is  of  more  consequence  to  know  the  etymology  of  the 
nanus,  than  to  be  secured  against  mistaking  the  persons  to  whom 
they  are  appropriated.  I  shall  only  add,  that,  by  a  strange  feli- 
city in  some  tongues,  both  purposes  are  answered  in  the  transla- 
tion, as  well  as  in  the  original.  Pierre^  in  Fr.  hits  both  senses 
exactly  ;  and  in  La.  and  Itn.  the  affinity  in  the  names  is  as  great 
as  between  Trerpoi  and  ttct^x,  in  Gr. 

51.  Thou  believest,  7nr£vei(.  E.  T.  Believest  thou?  The 
words  are  capable  of  being  translated  either  way.  I  prefer  the 
more  simple  method  of  rendering,  which  is  by  affirmation,  when 
neither  the  form  of  the  sentence,  nor  any  expression  of  surprise 
or  emotion,  lead  us  to  consider  it  as  an  interrogation. 

52.  Hereafter,  xtt'  apn.  There  is  nothing  answering  to  this 
in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Arm.  versions.  The  words  are  want- 
ing in  but  one  MS,  of  no  great  account, 


402  NOTES  ON 


CHAPTER  II. 


cH.  ir. 


4.  Woman.  That  this  compel lation  was  not,  in  those  days, 
accounted  disrespectful,  has  been  fully  evinced  by  critics  from 
the  best  authorities.  We  find  in  this  Gospel  (ch.  xix.  '26.)  our 
Lord  addressing  his  mother  by  this  title  on  a  very  moving  occa. 
sion,  on  which  he  shewed  her  the  most  tender  affection  and 
regard. 

^  What  hast  thou  to  do  with  vie?  Mt.  viii.  29.  N.  It  was 
no  doubt  our  Lord's  intention,  in  these  words,  gently  to  suggest 
that,  in  what  concerned  his  office,  earthly  parents  had  no  autho- 
rity over  him.  In  other  things,  he  had  been  subject  to  them- 
Some  translators  have  been  rather  over-solicitous  to  accommo- 
date the  expression  to  modern  forms  of  civility.  The  An.  Leave 
that  affair  to  me  ;  is  not  that  my  concern  ?  Hey.  What  is  there 
between  me  and  you?  This,  I  suppose,  has  been  thought  a  softer 
expression  of  the  sense  than  that  which  is  given  in  the  E.  T.  It 
is  certainly  more  obscure,  and  does  not  suit  our  idiom.  But  it 
is  a  literal  version  of  the  phrase,  by  which  the  Fr.  translators 
render  our  Lord's  expression — Qu'  y  a-t.il  entre  voiis  et  moi  ? 
Wes.  What  is  it  to  me  and  thee  ?  This,  at  first  sight,  appears 
preferable  to  the  rest,  because  the  most  literal  version.  But,  as 
Bishop  Pearce  well  observes,  had  that  been  the  Evangelist's 
meaning,  he  would  have  written  t<  -Tfpoc,  ef^e  x.xt  o-e ;  as  in  ch.  xxi. 
23.  T<  «-fo5  <rs ;  what  is  that  to  thee  ?  and,  Mt.  xxvii.  4.  r;  5rfo5 
}jV«5  ;  what  is  that  to  us  ?  Let  me  add,  that  t<  etta<  >e«<  voh  as  it  is 
elliptic,  is  evidently  a  proverbial  or  idiomatic  expression.  Now, 
the  meaning  of  such  is  always  collected  from  the  customary  ap- 
plication of  the  words  taken  together,  and  not  from  combining 
the  significations  of  the  words  taken  severally.  The  common 
version  suits  the  phrase  in  every  place  where  it  occurs — Wesley's 
does  not ;  accordingly,  in  all  other  places,  he  renders  it  differ- 
ently. Another  reason  against  this  manner  is,  because  the  sense 
conveyed  by  it  is  a  worse  sense,  and  not  suitable  io  the  spirit  of 
our  Lord's  instructions.  '  What  is  it  to  us,  that  they  want 
'  wine  ?  That  concerns  them  only  ;  let  them  see  to  it.'  This  way 
of  talking  appears  rather  selfish,  and  does  not  savour  of  that 


CH.  II- 


S.  JOHN.  403 


tender  sympathy  which  our  religion  so  warmly  recommends, 
whereby  the  interests  and  the  concerns  of  others,  their  joys  and 
and  their  sorrows,  are  made  our  own. 

6.  Baths,  iJLtrpyiTeti.  E.  T.  Firkins.  As  to  the  impropriety 
of  introducing  into  a  version  of  Scripture,  the  name  of  a  vessel 
so  modern  asjirkin.  see  Diss.  VIII.  P.  I  §  9,  &c.  I  have  pre- 
ferred here  the  Heb.  measure,  bath.,  as  the  common  standard 
used  in  reckoning  the  capacity  of  their  vessels  ;  especially  as  I 
find  the  Heb.  word  na  rendered  jM,£T»-,)Ty5,  in  the  Sep.  2  C-hron. 
iv.  5.  I  acknowledge,  at  the  same  time,  that  this  evidence  is  not 
decisive ;  but  I  have  not  found  any  thing  better,  in  support  of  a 
different  opinion.  The  Seventy,  indeed,  have,  in  1  Kin^s,  xviii. 
32.  rendered  hnd  seahy  which  was  equal  to  one  third  of  the  bfifh, 
in  the  same  manner  ;  but,  as  the  words  seah  and  ephak  were, 
with  the  Hebrews,  peculiarly  the  names  of  dry  measures,  and 
never  applied  to  liquids,  we  cannot  have  recourse  to  that  passage 
for  the  interpretation  of  an  expression  relating  solely  to  liquors. 
Some  think  that,  as  f^erp^nii  was  also  the  name  of  an  Attic  mea- 
sure, the  Evangelist  (most  of  whose  readers  were  probably 
Greeks)  must  have  referred  to  it,  as  best  known  in  that  country. 
There  are  other  suppositions  made  ;  but  hardly  any  thing  more 
than  conjecture  has  been  advanced  in  favour  of  any  of  them.  It 
ought  not  to  be  dissembled,  that,  in  most  of  the  explanations 
which  have  been  given  of  the  passage,  the  quantity  of  liquor  ap- 
pears so  great,  as  to  reflect  an  improbability  on  the  interpreta- 
tion. I  shall  only  say,  that  the  E.  T.  is  more  liable  to  this  ob- 
jection than  the  present  version.  The  Jirkin  contains  nine 
gallons  ;  the  bath  is  commonly  rated  at  seven  and  a  half,  some 
say  but  four  and  a  half;  in  which  case  the  amount  of  the  whole, 
as  represented  here,  is  but  half  of  what  the  E.  T.  makes  it.  The 
quantity  thus  reduced,  will  not,  perhaps,  be  thought  so  enor- 
mous, when  we  consider,  first,  the  length  of  time,  commonly  a 
week,  spent  in  feasting  on  such  occasions  (of  which  time,  possi- 
bly, one  half  was  not  yet  over),  and  the  great  concourse  of  peo- 
ble  which  they  were  wont  to  assemble. 

*  For  the  Jeidsh  rites  of  cleansing.^  kccto.  tov  xx9xpta-iMv  rm 
la^miay.  E.  T.  After  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews. 
This  expression  is  rather  obscure  and  indefinite.     There  can  be 


404  NOTES  ON  GH.  „. 

no  doubt  that,  in  such  cases  as  the  present,  xara  is  equivalent  to 
£<5,  and  denotes  the  end  or  purpose.  So  the  Sy.  interpreter  has 
understood  it. 

10.  When  the  guests  have  drunk  largely^  otm  ffSeva-B-axs-t.  Vul. 
Cum  inebriatifuerint.  The  Gr.  word,  frequently  in  Scripturei 
and  sometimes  in  other  writings,  denotes  no  more  than  to  drink 
freely^  but  not  to  intoxication. 

14.   Cattle,  f^odi.     E.  T.  C'xen.     By?  in  Gr.  in  like  manner  as 
hos  in  La.  is  thi:"  name  of  the  species,  and  thorffore  of  <ho  com- 
mon gender.     It  includes  alike  hul/s^  cores,  and  oxen.     Thus, 
Gen.  x!i.  '2,  3.  the  kine  in  Pliarao's  dream  are  termed  /3o£?  by  the 
Seventy — tTrroi   fioei;   KoiXei' — uXXxt    iTrrx   /3af;    ccis-^^xi — and    in    the 
Vul.  they  are  named  boves  ;  but  no  person  who  understands  Kng. 
would  call  them  oxen.     And  though  a  herd  may  sometimes  l)e  so 
denominated,  because  the  oxen  make  the  greater  part,  it  could 
ijever,  with  propriety,  be  used  of  cattle  amongst  which  there 
was  not  even  a  single  ox.     Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  merchan- 
dize, which  was  carried  on  in  the  outermost  court  of  the  temple, 
a  very  unsuitable  place,  without  doubt,  was  under  the  pretext  of 
being  necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  the  worshippers,  that 
they  might  be  supplied  with  the  victims  requisite  for  the  altar  ; 
and,  where  payments  in  money  were  necessary,  that,  in  exchange 
for  the  foreign  coin  they  may  have  brought  from  their  respective 
places  of  abode,  they  might  be  furnished   with  such  as  the  law 
and  custom  required.     Now,  by  the  law  of  Moses,  no  mutilated 
beast,  and  consequently  no  ot,  could  be  offered   in  sacrifice  to 
God.     Yet  all  the  English  translators  I  have  seen,  render  /3««? 
here  oxen.  In  like  manner,  all  the  Fr.  translators  I  am  acquaint- 
ed with,  except  Beau,  who  says,  des  taureaux,  fall  into  the  same 
mistake,  rendering  the  word  des  bceufs. 

20.  Forty  and  six  years  xsas  this  temple  in  building,  rctrretpoi. 
x«vT*  t^  £|  cTea-iv  uko$oim}6)i  o  v«©-  «r®-.  Dod.  Hey.  and  Wor. 
say,  hath  been,  instead  of  zcas,  proceeding  on  the  supposition, 
that  those  who  made  this  reply  alluded  to  the  additional  buildings 
which  the  temple  had  received,  and  which  had  been  begun  by 
Herod,  and  continued  by  those  who  succeeded  him  in  the  govern- 
ment of  Judea,  to  the  time  then  present.  But  let  it  be  observed, 
that  the  Jews  never  did,  nor  do,  to  this  day,  speak  of  more  than 


CH.  II. 


S.  JOHN.  405 


two  temples  possessed  by  their  fathers ;  the  first  built  by  Solo, 
mon,  the  second  by  Zerubbabel.  The  great  additions  made  by 
Herod,  were  considered  as  intended  only  for  decorating  and  re- 
pairing the  edifice,  not  for  rebuilding  it;  for,  in  fact,  Zerubba. 
bei's  temple  had  not  then  been  destroyed.  Nor  need  we,  I  think, 
puzzle  ourselves  to  make  out  exactly  i\\Q forty-six  years  spoken 
of.  Those  men  were  evidently  in  the  humour  of  exaggerating, 
in  order  to  represent  to  the  people  as  absurd,  what  they  had  ira- 
mediately  heard  advanced  by  our  Lord.  In  this  disposition,  we 
may  believe,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  include  the  years  in" 
which  the  work  was  interrupted,  among  the  years  employed  in 
building. 

22.  That  he  had  said  this,  oTt  rara  cXiycv.  In  the  common  edi- 
tions, civToii,tothem,  is  added.  But  this  word  is  wanting  in  a  very 
great  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  several  of  the  highest 
nccount.  It  is  not  in  some  of  the  best  editions,  nor  in  the  fol- 
lowing versions :  the  Vul.  either  of  the  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  Ger. 
Tigurine,  old  Belgic.  It  has  not  been  admitted  by  the  best  cri- 
tics, ancient  or  modern. 

2  They  understood  the  Scripture  and  the  word,  tTriTcvTttv  rjj 
yfei<p7)  >d  TO)  Myu.  E.  T.  They  believed  the  Scripture  and  the 
word.  UiTsvuv,  in  the  sacred  writers,  sometimes  signifies,  not 
so  much  to  believe,  as  to  apprehend  aright.  In  this  sense,  it  is 
once  and  again  employed  by  this  writf'r  in  particular.  It  is  not 
insinuated  here,  that  the  disciples  did  not,  before  this  time,  6e- 
lieve  the  Scripture,  or  their  Master's  word  ;  but  that  they  did 
not,  till  now,  rightly  apprehend  the  meaning  of  either,  in  rela- 
tion to  this  subject.  Another  instance  of  this  application  of  the 
Terb  TTt^evM,  we  have,  ch.  iii.  12. 

24.  Because  he  knezo  them  all.  Aia  to  xvtov  ytvucrx.eiv  TrxvTxi. 
The  Gr.  expression  is  an  apt  example  of  ambiguous  construc- 
tion, for  it  is  equally  capable  of  being  rendered,  because  they 
all  knezo  him.  Yet  interpreters,  if  I  mistake  not,  have  been 
unanimous  in  rendering  it  in  the  former  way.  This  unanimity 
is  itself  a  presumption  in  favour  of  that  way  ;  but  when  to  this 
is  added  the  scope  of  the  context,  it  is  rendered  indubitable. 
We  can  easily  understand  how  a  man's  knowledge  of  some  per- 
sons should  hinder  him  from  trusting  them,  but  not  how  he 
should  be  hindered  by  their  knowledge  of  him.     Besides,  the 

VOL.    IV.  51, 


405  NOTES  ON  ch.  hi. 

words  in  the  following  verse,  show  that  it  is  solely  of  our  Lord's 
penetration  into  the  characters  of  men,  that  the  Evangelist  is 
speaking. 


CHAPTER  III. 

3.  Unless  a  man  be  born  again,  iccv  uti  myan^yi  uvaSiv.  Iley. 
Unless  a  man  be  born  from  above.  The  word  xvaS-ev  will,  no 
doubt,  admit  either  interpretation.  But  that  the  common  ver- 
sion is  here  preferable,  is  evident  from  the  answer  given  by  Ni- 
codemus,  which  shows,  that  he  understood  it  no  otherwise  than 
as  a  second  birth.  And  let  it  be  observed,  that,  in  the  Cha.  lan- 
guage, spoken  by  our  Lord,  there  is  not  the  same  ambiguity 
which  we  find  here  in  the  Gr.  The  word  occurs  in  this  sense, 
Gal.  iv.  9.  The  oldest  versions  concur  in  this  interpretation. 
Vul.  Nisi  qiiis  renatus  fuerit  dcnuo.  With  this,  Cas.  and  Be. 
perfectly  agree  in  sense.  Er.  indeed,  says,  Nisi  (juis  naius fue- 
rit e  supernis.  In  this  he  is  followed,  as  usual,  by  the  transla- 
tor of  Zu.  The  Sy.  is  conformable  to  the  Vul.  So  are  also  the 
Ger.  the  Itn.  and  all  the  Fr  versions,  Romish  and  Protestant. 
All  the  Eng.  translators  also,  except  Iley.  render  the  words  in 
the  same  manner. 

^  He  cannot  discern  the  reign  of  God,  a  ^wxtxi  tSc-iv  ryy  lixn. 
'A««»  m  ©£«.  E.  T.  He  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  The 
common  explanation  that  is  given  of  the  word  see,  in  this  pas- 
sage, is  enjoij,  share  in.  Accordingly,  it  is  considered  as  syno- 
nymous with  enter,  verse  5.  Though  I  admit,  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, the  truth  of  this  exposition,  I  do  not  think  it  comprehends 
the  whole  of  what  the  words  imply.  It  is  true,  that  to  see,  of- 
ten denotes  to  enjoy,  or  to  suffer,  as  suits  the  nature  of  the  ob- 
ject seen.  Thus,  to  see  death,  is  used  for  to  die  ;  to  see  life, 
foT  to  live;  to  see  good  days,  for  to  enjoy  good  da^ys  ;  and /o 
see  corruption,  for  to  suffer  corruption.  But  this  sense  of  the 
word  seeing,  is  limited  (o  a  very  few  phrases,  of  which  those 
now  mentioned  are  the  chief.  I  have  not,  however,  found  an 
example,  setting  this  passage  aside  as  questionable,  of  Jwv /3ao-/- 
A««v,  for  enjoying  a  kingdom,  or  partaking  therein.  Let  it  be 
observed  further,  that  the  form  of  the  expression  is  not  that 
Hsed  in  threatening,  which  is  always   by  the  future,  or  by  some 


CB.  III.  S.  JOHN.  407 

periphrasis  of  like  import.  Thus,  as  in  the  same  chapter,  Terse 
36.  UK.  o-^erxi  ^cdiit  is  denounced  as  a  threat,  the  expression 
would  probably  have  been  here,  had  that  been  the  scope,  a^  ©•v/'t- 
T««  Tjjv  jiet^i^Hxv  Tn  Qsa.  Whereas,  the  verb  Swxi^xt,  with  the 
negative  particle,  denotes,  I  imagine,  an  unfitness  or  incapacity 
in  regard  to  the  action  or  enjoyment  mentioned.  1  understand, 
therefore,  the  word  «J«v  to  imply  here,  what  it  often  implies,  to 
perceive,  to  disceni,  not  by  the  bodily  organ,  but  by  the  eye  of 
the  nund.  To  see^  for  to  conceive,  to  understand,  is  a  metaphor 
familiar  to  all  classes  of  people,  and  to  be  found  in  every  lan- 
guage. The  import,  therefore,  in  my  apprehension,  is  this ; 
'  The  man  who  is  not  regenerated,  or  born  again  of  water  and 
'  spirit,  is  not  in  a  capacity  of  perceiving  the  reign  of  God, 
•■  though  it  were  commenced.  Though  the  kingdom  of  the  saints 
'  on  the  earth  were  already  established,  the  unregenerate  would 
'  not  discern  it,  because  it  is  a  spiritual,  not  a  worldly  kingdom, 
'  and  capable  of  being  no  otherwise  than  spiritually  discerned. 
''  And  as  the  kingdom  itself  would  remain  unknown  to  him,  he 
'  could  not  share  in  the  blessings  enjoyed  by  the  subjects  of  it.' 
This  last  clause  appears  to  be  the  import  of  that  expression, 
Terse  5th,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  two  de- 
clarations, therefore,  are  not  synonymous,  but  related  ;  and  the 
latter  is  consequent  upon  the  former.  The  same  sentiment  oc- 
curs, 1  Cor.  ii.  14.  So  far  I  agree  with  the  common  exposition, 
that,  to  sce^  means  here  to  enjoy  ;  for  a  great  part  of  the  enjoy- 
ment of  those  born  of  the  spirit,  consists,  doubtless,  in  their  spi- 
ritual discernment  of  things  divine,  or  results  from  it.  Let  it 
be  observed  further,  that  the  sense  heregiven  to  the  words  makes 
the  connection  and  pertinency  of  the  whole  discourse  much 
clearer.  It  is  represented  as  our  Lord's  answer  to  what  Nico. 
demus  had  said  to  him.  Now,  though  I  acknowledge  that  the 
verb  ct7ro>c§ina-3-cii  does  not,  in  the  N.  T.  always  imply  strictly 
what  the  verb  to  anszcer  implies  with  us  (it  being  frequently 
used,  agreeably  to  the  Ileb.  idiom,  of  one  who  begins  a  conver- 
sation),  yet,  when  it  is  preceded  by  the  words  of  a  different 
speaker,  which,  though  not  a  question,  seem  to  require  some  no- 
tice, we  shall  not  often  err  in  rendering  it  to  anszcer.  Such  a 
case  is  the  present.  Nicodenius  had  acquainted  our  Lord  what, 
in  brief,  his  faith  was  concerning  him,  aad  the  foundation  on 
which  it  was  built.     His  faith  was,  that  .Tesus  was  a  teacher 


408  NOTES  ON  ch.  hi. 

whom  God  had  specially  commissioned,  in  other  words  a  Pro- 
phet; and  his  reason  for  thinking  so,  was  the  miracles  which  he 
performed.  This,  we  may  rest  assured,  from  what  he  says,  when 
evidently  disposed  to  say  the  most  he  could,  was  the  sum  of  his 
belief  at  that  time  concerning  Jesus.  No  mention  is  made  of 
the  Messiah,  or  of  his  reign  upon  the  earth.  It  is  in  reference  to 
this  defect,  in  the  words  of  Nicodemus,  partly,  as  it  were,  to  ac- 
count for  his  silence  on  this  article,  and  partly  to  point  out  to 
him  the  proper  source  of  this  knowledge,  that  our  Lord  answers, 
by  obserTing  that,  unless  a  man  be  enlightened  by  the  spirit,  or 
born  anew,  not  to  the  light  of  this  world,  but  to  that  of  the  hea- 
venly, he  cannot  discern  either  the  signs  of  the  Messiah,  or  the 
nature  of  his  government.  For  let  it  be  observed,  that  Nico- 
demus, though  more  candid  than  any  Jew  of  his  rank  at  that 
time,  and  willing  to  weigh,  impartially,  the  evidence  of  a  divine 
mission,  even  in  one  who  was  detested  by  the  ruling  powers  ; 
was  not  altogether  superior  to  those  prejudices  concerning  the 
secular  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  which  seem  to  have  been  uni- 
versal among  the  Jews  of  that  age.  It  is  a  very  fine,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  a  very  just  observation  of  Cyril,  that  our  Lord's  re- 
prehensions, in  this  conversation,  in  some  respects  more  severe 
than  ordinary,  are  to  be  understood  as  directed,  not  so  much 
against  Nicodemus,  as  against  the  guides  and  instructers  of  the 
age,  the  class  to  which  Nicodemus  belonged.  Augustine  is  of 
opinion,  that  it  was  necessary  thus  to  humble  the  spiritual  pride 
of  the  Pharisee,  the  conceited  superiority  to  the  vulgar  in  things 
sacred,  which  is  the  greatest  obstruction  to  divine  knowledge  ; 
that  he  might  be  prepared  for  receiving,  with  all  humility,  the 
illumination  of  the  spirit. 

5.  Unless  a  man  be  horn  of  zcater  and  spirit^  exv  y.ij  t/;  y^Di/jj^^ 
£|?c/^afr(^  }^  TFvsvf^xr®^.  Vul.  Nisi  quis  renatus  fiierit  ex  aqua  et 
spiritu  sancto.  For  neither  of  these  variations  in  the  Vul.  rena- 
tus for  naius,  and  sancto  added  to  spiritu^  do  we  find  any  autho- 
rity from  MSS.  or  (if  we  except  the  Sax.)  from  versions. 

^  It  may  be  proper  to  observe,  in  passing,  that  though  our 
Lord,  in  this  account  of  regeneration,  joins  zcater  and  spirit  to- 
gether, he  does  not,  in  contrasting  it  with  natural  generation, 
verse  6th,  mention  the  tcaier  at  all,  but  opposes  simply  the  spirit 
to  the  fleshy  as  the  original  principles,  if  I  may  so  express  my- 
self, of  those  difl'erent  sorts  of  birth.     Again,  in  what  be  says, 


Cll.    III. 


S.  JOHN.  409 


verse  8th,  of  the  manner  wherein  this  change  is  effected,  the  rege- 
nerate are  distinguished  solely  by  the  words  born  of  the  spirit. 

8.  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listcth,  and  thou  hearcst  the 
sound  thereof ;  but  knowest  not  zohence  it  cometh^  or  v:hilhcr  it 
goeth  ;  so  it  is  with  every  one  who  is  born  of  the  spirit — To  Trnv- 
ux  oJCH  S'fAfi  xvH,  J^  Tj;v  <pmt]V  xvra  ccxHHij  «AA'  ^x.  oidoc^  TcSev  ep^Brcd 
id  "Jm  vToiyet'  a'rwi  eri  ^xg  i  •yeyevvr,f^a<^  ck  ra  Trvtv^cxT®^.  Vul.  Er. 
Zu.  Spiritus,  ubi  vult,  spirat,  et  vocem  ejus  audis,  sed  nescis 
unde  veniat  aut  quo  vadat :  sic  est  omnis  qui  natus  est  ex  spiritu. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  as,  in  the  Gr.  and  in  the  Vul.  the 
same  word,  in  this  passage,  signifies  both  wind  and  spirit,  the 
illustration  is  expressed  with  more  energy  than  it  is  possible  to 
give  it  in  those  languages  which  do  not  admit  the  same  ambigui- 
ty. The  Sy.  does  admit  it,  and  is  an  exact  version  of  the  words, 
in  the  full  extent  they  have  in  the  original.  As,  in  most  modern 
tongues,  it  is  necessary  to  recur  to  different  words  for  explaining 
the  same  term,  in  the  beginning  of  the  verse  and  in  the  end,  this 
gives  a  degree  of  obscurity,  and  an  appearance  of  incoherency,  to 
the  version,  which  the  original  has  not.  The  Fr.  translators  from 
the  Vul.  as  Si.  Sa.  and  P.  R,  have  employed  the  word  Pesprit 
in  both  places.  L^ esprit  souffle  ou  il  veut,  et  vous  entendez  bien 
sa  voix.  This  sounds  oddly  in  our  cars.  It  would  be  still  worse 
to  render  Tvevf^x,  wind,  in  both  places.  But  to  preserve  the  simili- 
tude, and  express  the  sense  with  sufficient  perspicuity,  in  a  modern 
language,  would  require  more  of  the  manner  of  paraphrase,  than 
is  thought  sufferable  in  a  translator.  As  this  manner,  howeyer, 
is  not  offensive  in  a  note,  I  shall  give  what  appears  to  me  the 
purport  of  verses  7th  and  8th.  '  Nor  is  there,'  as  if  he  had  said. 
'  any  thing  in  this,  either  absurd,  or  unintelligible.     The  wind, 

*  which,  in  Hebrew,  is  expressed  by  the  same  word  as  spirit, 
'  shall  serve  for  an  example.  It  is  invisible  ;  we  hear  the  noise 
'  it  makes,  but  cannot  discover  what  occasions  its  rise  or  Its  fail. 

*  It  is  known  to  us  solely  by  its  effects.     Just  so  it  is  with  this 

*  second  birth.  The  spirit  himself,  the  great  agent,  is  invisible, 
^  his  manner  of  operating  is  beyond  our  discovery ;  but  the 
'  reality  of  his  operation  is  perceived  by  the  effects  produced  on 
'  the  disposition  and  life  of  the  regenerate.' 

*  10.  The  teacher  of  Israel,  o  s*«J'«5-x«A®-  th  iT^nyiT^.     E.  T.  A 


410  NOTES  ON  CH.  ni. 

master  of  Israel.  The  article  here  is  remarkable ;  the  more  so, 
because  there  does  not  appear  to  be  a  single  Gr.  copy  which 
omits  it.  As  a  member  of  the  sanhedrim,  Nicodemus  had  a  su- 
perintendency  in  what  concerned  religious  instruction,  and  might, 
on  that  account,  have  been  called  a  teacher  of  Israel ;  but  it  is 
probably  to  intimate  to  us  a  distinguished  fame  for  abilities  in 
this  respect,  that  he  is  styled,  by  way  of  eminence,  o  ^i^ctTx.ix,\(^. 
It  appears  so  particular,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  by 
the  translator.  Be.  after  Er.  has  properly  distinguished  it  in  La. 
which  has  not  articles,  by  the  pronoun,  magister  ille  Israelis, 
The  only  other  version  I  know,  wherein  attention  has  been  paid 
to  the  article  in  this  place,  is  Diodati's,  who  says,  il  dottore 
(V  Israel.  The  reproof  conveyed  in  this  verse  is  thought  to  have 
an  allusion  to  certain  figures  of  speech,  pretty  similar  to  those 
used  on  this  occasion  by  our  Lord,  and  not  unfrequent  among 
the  rabbies,  who  considered  the  baptism  of  proselytes  as  a  new 
birth.  To  this  sort  of  language,  therefore,  it  might  be  thought 
extraordinary  that  Nicodemus  should  be  so  much  a  stranger,  I 
think,  however,  that  our  Lord's  censure  rather  relates  to  his 
being  so  entirely  unacquainted  with  that  effusion  of  the  spirit 
which  would  take  place  under  the  Messiah,  and  which  had  been 
so  clearly  foretold  by  the  Prophets. 

12.  If  ye  understood  not.     Ch.  ii.  22,  -  N. 

13.  IVhose  abode  is  heaven.^  o  m  ev  ru  upavu.  E.  T.  IVhich 
is  in  heax'.en.  Two  MSS.  of  no  name,  read  ex.  m  a^xva.  But  as 
this  reading  is  supported  by  no  ancient  author  or  translator,  it 
has  no  authority.  The  common  reading  is  not  unsuitable  to  the 
style  of  the  writer,  'o  av  «5  tov  xaXTrov  m  ttxt^^,  ch.  i.  18,  is 
a  similar  expression.  Both  are  intended  to  denote,  rather  what 
is  habitual  and  characteristic  of  the  person,  than  what  obtains  at 
a  particular  instant.  By  the  expression,  o  m  «5  tov  x.aX7rov  m  7r»- 
Tp(^,  is  meant,  not  only  '  who  is  the  special  object  of  the  father's 
'  love,'  but  '  who  is  admitted  to  his  most  secret  counsels,'  By 
0  m  £v  TO)  apxvw,  is  meant,  '  whose  abode,  whose  residence,  whose 
'  home  is  there,'  This  is  agreeable,  in  import,  to  the  interpreta- 
tion given  by  Nonnus  : 

— — 'O?  ar£fe£VT<   iu.iXx9^a 


err.  III.  S.  JOHN.  411 

14.  As  Moses  placed  oa  high  the  serpent^  y,x6ui  yiurw  h-^ure 
T8V  e^jfv.  E.  T.  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent.  Unless  we 
knew  the  story  referred  to,  which  is  related,  Numb.  xxi.  we 
should  not  rightly  understand  the  meaning  of  the  expression  used 
in  the  E.  T.  Tu  lift  up  a  serpent,  implies  no  more  than  to  take 
it  oft"  the  ground,  and  is  consequently  far  from  expressing  the 
import  of  the  Gr.  word  u'^un. 

20,  21.  In  these  two  concluding  verses  of  this  conversation, 
our  Saviour  glances,  as  it  were  in  passing,  at  the  impropriety  of 
Nicodemus'  conduct  in  coming  to  consult  him  in  the  silence  of 
the  night,  as  one  conscious  of  doing  what  he  ought  to  be  asham- 
ed of,  not  as  one  who  acted  in  obedience  to  the  call  of  duty.  To 
this  the  attention  of  a  conscientious  man  would  be  more  strongly- 
awakened,  as  the  preferring  of  darkness  to  light  is  declared  to  be 
the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  infidels. 

21.  That  it  may  be  manifest  that  his  actions  are  agreeable  to 
God,  Iva  <pxviPu&ii  uvra  ra,  i^yx,  on  iv  Qsu  er'v  n^'ycc~f*,;vx.  E.  '1. 
That  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest,  that  they  are  wrought  in 
God.  Vul.  Ut  manifestentur  opera  ejus  quia  in  Deo  sunt  facta. 
Instead  oiin  Deo,  Er.  says,  per  Deum,  Zu,  cum  Deo,  and  Cas. 
divinitus.  Be.  has  hit  the  sense  better,  rendering  it  secundum 
Deum.  Gro.  justly  observes,  that  in  such  cases  tv  is  used  for 
x.xrx,  and  gives  for  an  example  a  Kv^ia,  1  Cor.  vii.  39.  In  this 
Be.  has  been  followed  by  Dio.  who  says  secondo  Iddio,  the  G. 
E.  according  to  God,  and  the  G.  F.  selon  Dieu.  In  the  same 
manner,  both  L.  Cl.  and  Beau,  translate  the  words.  I  may  also 
add,  Si.  who,  though  not  chargeable  with  partiality  to  Be.  and 
though  translating  from  the  Vul.  has  here  adopted  the  method  of 
the  Genevese  interpreter,  and  rendered  it  stion  Dieu.  I  have 
expressed  the  same  sense  with  as  much  plainness  as  our  idiom 
■will  admit. 

25.  John^s  disciples  had  a  dispute  zcith  a  Jezo,  tyairo  ^itrijTii 
ix.  rm  y.x$iirciiv  luxvva  f^sru,  la^Mm.  E.  T.  There  arose  a  question 
between  some  of  John^s  disciples  and  the  Jews.  There  is  no 
ellipsis  here,  sx,  being  used  iov  utto.  Though  the  common  edi- 
tions read  la^xim,  the  greater  number  of  MSS.  amongst  which 
are  soiiie  of  the  most  valuable,  some  ancient  expositors  also  and 
critics,  read  la^xia  in  the  singular.    With  this  acrco  both  the  Sv 


112  NOTES  ON  CH.  in- 

versions. To  tills  reading  also  Nonnus  the  Gr.  versifier  and 
paraphrast,  who  commonly  keeps  pretty  close  to  the  sense,  has 
also  given  his  sanction  : 

Epii  (?£  Tig  uf^i^i  nm^tx^y^ 

EttXiTO  f^VflTToXolTtV   1««VV««0  flsSSilTcilr, 

'E?pxtn  ft-iToc  (pa>T®^. 
Add  to  these  some  of  our  best  modern  critics,  as  Gro.  Cocceius, 
Ham.  Mill,  and  Wet. 

^  About  pu?'(/ication,  tts^i  y,x6i!t§iTf4.n :  that  is,  as  appears  from 
the  sequel,  about  baptisms  and  other  legal  ablutions. 

29.  The  bridegroom  is  he  who  hath  the  bride^  o  tx"^^  '"''''  "^'z^- 
(p^jv,  vvf/.(pi^  eriv.  E.  T.  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom. 
As  the  manifest  intention  here  is  to  point  out  the  distinction  be- 
tween Jesus  the  bridegroom  and  John  his  friend,  the  arrange, 
ment  I  have  given  the  words  is  more  suited  to  the  Eng.  idiom. 
The  other  way  appears  to  us  an  inversion  of  the  natural  order, 
and  is  consequently  less  perspicuous. 

32.  Yet  his  testimony  is  not  received.  This,  compared  with 
the  clause,  He  who  receiveth  his  testimony,  which  immediately 
follows,  is  a  strong  evidence  that  the  words  of  Scripture  ought 
not  to  be  more  rigidly  interpreted,  than  the  ordinary  style  of 
dialogue  ;  wherein  such  hyperboles  as  all  for  many,  and  none  for 
feic,  are  quite  familiar. 

33.  Voucheth  the  veracity  oj  God,  to-zp^xyiriv  in  h  Ge<^  oi,Xvi6»i<; 
t?-tv.  E.  T.  Hath  set  to  his  seal  that  God  is  true.  As  sealing 
was  employed  for  vouching  the  authenticity  of  writs,  to  seal 
came,  by  a  natural  and  easy  transition,  to  signify  to  vouch,  to 
attest.  Our  acceptance  of  God's  message  by  his  Son,  through 
an  unshaken  faith,  vouches,  on  our  part,  the  faithfulness  of  God, 
and  the  truth  of  his  promises. 

34.  For  he  rchom  God  hath  commissioned,  rclateth  God's  own 
zsords,  Ov  yai-i  unrsiXiv  o  &s(^,  rot  qr,fA.ocrcc  rs  &eii  A*Ah.  There 
is  the  same  kind  of  ambiguity  here  which  was  remarked  in  ch.  ii. 
24.  The  version  may  be,  God^s  oion  words  relate  whom  God 
hath  commissioned.  Here  also  translators  appear  unanimous  in 
preferring  the  former  version,  which  is  likewise  more  agreeable 
^o  the  usual  application  of  the  terms.     It  is  more  natural  io  re- 


ClI.     IV. 


S.  JOHN.  413 


present  a  person  as  speaking  words,  than  words  as  speaking  a 
person.  It  is,  besides,  favoured  by  the  connection.  Wa.  seems 
to  have  declared  himself  an  exception  from  the  unanimity  in  both 
cases,  but  without  assigning  a  reason.    See  his  New  Translation. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

I.  Jesus,  0  Kv^t(^.  E.  T.  The  Lord.  But  the  Cam.  and  ten. 
other  MSS.  read  o  hc-m.  It  is  thus  read  also  in  the  Vul.  both 
the  Sy.  the  Cop.  the  Arm.  the  Ara.  and  the  Sax.  versions.  Chr. 
has  read  so,  and  it  is  also  in  some  printed  editions.  As  this  dif- 
ference in  reading  makes  not  the  smallest  change  in  the  sense, 
but  a  change  to  the  better  in  the  composition  of  the  sentence,  I 
thought  the  above  mentioned  authority  sufficient  for  adopting  it. 
The  Avay  in  which  the  sentence  runs  in  the  E.  T.  would  naturally 
lead  the  reader  to  think  that  one  person  is  meant  by  the  Lord, 
and  another  by  Jesus-  When,  therefore,  the  Lord  knezo  how 
the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made- Several  of  the  au- 
thorities aforesaid  drop  Ij;5-»5  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse.  I 
am  surprised  that  this  has  been  overlooked  by  Wet. 

.5.  Near  the  heritage,  TrXijis-tov  m  x.^^pm.  E.  T.  Near  to  the 
parcel  of  ground.  This  application  of  the  word  parcel  is  very 
unusual.  The  word  %w^<ev  means  an  estate  in  land  ;  and  as  the 
estate  here  spoken  of  was  given  by  the  Patriarch  to  his  son  Jo- 
seph, to  be  possessed  by  him  and  his  posterity,  it  is  properly  de.. 
nominated  heritage,  agreeably  to  what  we  are  told,  Josh.  xxi. 
32.     It  is  so  rendered  into  Fr.  by  Beau.  Sa.  P.  R.  and  Si. 

9.  For  the  J  exes  have  no  friendly  intercourse  zdth  the  Sama- 
ritans, a  yot^  c-t/y xpavTM  la^cttcti  'Zoii^u^eiTxi^.  E.  T.  For  the  Jews 
have  no  dealings  uithihe  Samaritans.  That  the  word  dealings 
implies  too  much  to  suit  the  sense  of  this  passage,  is  manifest 
from  the  preceding  verse,  where  we  are  told  that  the  disciples 
were  gone  into  the  Samaritan  city  Sychar  to  buy  food.  The  verb 
Tvy)(,pxou,M  is  one  of  those  called  a«-<«|  ^^eyefcsvct :  it  does  not  oc. 
cur  in  any  other  place  of  the  N,  T.  or  in  the  Sep.  The  Phari- 
sees were,  in  their  traditions,  nice  distinguishers.  Buying  and 
selling  with  Samaritans  was  permitted,  because  that  was  consi. 
vor,.   TT.  52 


414  NOTES  ON 


en.  IV. 


dered  as  an  intercourse  merely  of  interest  or  conveniency  ;  bor- 
rowing and  lendifig,  much  more  asking  or  accepting  any  favour, 
was  prohibited  ;  because  that  was  regarded  as  an  intercourse  of 
friendship,  which  they  thought  impious  to  maintain  with  those 
whom  they  looked  upon  as  the  enemies  of  God. 

10.  The  bou7ifij  of  God, -Tiiv  da^suv  Tn  &eii.  E.  T.  The  gift  of 
God.  The  word  <Jft>«£c«  means  not  only  a  particular  gift,  but  that 
disposition  of  mind  from  which  the  gift  arises,  bounty,  liberality ^ 
goodness.  In  this  sense  it  is  sometimes  used  by  the  Apostle 
Paul,  as  Eph.  iii.  7.  iv.  7.  Most  translators,  not  attending  to 
this,  have  rendered  these  verses  by  tautologies  and  indefinite  ex- 
pressions, to  the  great  hurt  of  perspicuity.  The  meaning  of  the 
word  is,  I  imagine,  the  same  in  Heb.  vi.  4;  But  the  plainest 
example  of  this  acceptation  we  have  in  the  Apocryphal  book  of 
Wisdom,  ch.  xvi.  25.  where  the  care  of  Providence  in  supporting 
every  living  thing  is,  in  an  address  to  God,  called  V  'Kctvror^o<p®-  o-h 
<?»/)£«,  literally,  in  ¥A^g.thy  alLnourishing  bounty.  This  mean- 
ing appears  also  more  pertinent  and  emphatical  in  the  passage 
under  consideration.  A  particular  gift  cannot  be  understood  as 
referred  to,  when  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  suggest  it. 
Cut  there  seems  to  be  intended  here  a  contrast  between  the  mu- 
nificence of  God,  which  extends  to  those  of  all  regions  and  de- 
nominations upon  the  earth,  and  the  contracted  spirit  of  man, 
who  is  ingenious  in  devising  pretexts  for  confining  the  divine 
liberality  to  as  few  objects  as  possible.  To  this  train  of  senti- 
ment the  preceding  words  naturally  lead.  The  woman  had  ex- 
pressed her  astonishment  that  a  Jew  could  ask  even  so  small  a 
favour  as  a  draught  of  water  from  a  Samaritan.  Jesus  tells  her, 
that  if  she  had  considered  more  the  bounty  of  the  universal  Pa- 
rent, from  which  none  are  excluded  by  the  distinction  of  Jew, 
Samaritan,  or  Heathen,  than  maxims  founded  in  the  malignity  of 
man,  and  if  she  had  known  the  character  of  him  who  talked  with 
her,  she  might  have  asked  successfully  a  gift  infinitely  more 
important. 

^  hiving  water,  uSojp  '^m.  It  may  surprise  an  English  reader, 
unacquainted  with  the  Oriental  idiom,  that  this  woman,  who  ap- 
pears, by  the  sequel,  to  have  totally  misunderstood  our  Lord, 
did  not  ask  what  he  meant  by  living  icater,  but  proceeded  on  the 
supposition  that  she  understood  him  perfectly,  and  only  did  not 
ronceivp  how,  without  some  vessel  for  drawing  and   containing 


ee.  IV.  S.  JOHN.  415 

that  water,  he  could  provide  her  with  it  to  drink.  The  truth  is, 
the  expression  is  ambiguous.  In  the  most  familiar  acceptation, 
living  zcater  meant  no  more  than  running  water.  In  this  sense 
the  water  of  springs  and  rivers  would  be  denominated  living,  as 
that  of  cisterns  and  lakes  would  be  called  dead,  because  motion. 
less.  Thus,  Gen.  xxvi.  19.  we  are  told  that  Isaac's  servants 
digged  in  the  valley,  and  found  there  a  well  of  springing  wafer. 
It  is  living  water  both  in  the  Heb.  and  in  the  Gr.  as  marked  on 
the  margin  of  our  Bibles.  Thus  also,  Lev.  xiv.  5.  what  is  ren. 
dered  running  voater  in  the  Eng.  Bible,  is  in  both  these  languages 
living  water.  Nay,  this  use  was  not  unknown  to  the  Latins,  as 
may  be  proved  from  Virgil  and  Ovid.  In  this  passage,  however, 
our  Lord  uses  the  expression  in  the  more  sublime  sense  for  di- 
vine teaching,  but  was  mistaken  by  the  woman  as  using  it  in  the 
popular  acceptation. 

11.  Thou  hast  no  bucket,  are  emXiif^ce.  £%«?.  E.  T.  Thou  hast 
nothing  to  draw  with.  AiTXiifJLu,,  from  mrXiu,  haurio,  hhaustrum, 
situla,  vas  ad  hauriendum  ;  which  is  the  definition  of  a  bucket. 
So  Dod.  also  renders  the  word. 

20.  This  mountain,  to  wit,  Gerizim,  at  the  foot  of  which  Sy- 
char  was  built,  and  on  which  the  Samaritans  had  formerly  erect- 
ed a  temple,  though  not  then  remaining.  For  they  pretended 
that  this  was  the  place  where  the  Patriarchs  had  offered  sacri- 
fice, and  which  God  himself  had  set  apart  as  the  only  place  con. 
secrated  for  the  performance  of  the  most  solemn  and  public  ce- 
remonies of  their  religion.  In  support  of  this  their  opinion, 
they  quote  some  passages  from  the  Pentateuch  (the  only  part  of 
Scripture  which  they  acknowledge),  particularly  Deut.  xxvii.  4. 
where,  instead  of  Ebal,  as  it  is  in  all  the  Jewish  copies  of  the 
Heb.  Scriptures  commonly  received,  the  Samaritan  copies  of  the 
same  scriptures  read  Gerizim. 

22.   Ye  worship  what  ye  know  not ;  we  zcorship  ichut  n-e  k  naze 

— uft«5   TT^oa-Kware   o  Hic   oi^xT:'   sjV^S   Trpoa-KVVHitsv  o  oi^xf-tiv.       E.  T. 

Ye  worship  ye  know  not  what  ;  we  know  what  we  worship  Tliere 
is  apparently  no  difference  between  these  two  versions,  except 
that  the  first  keeps  closer  to  the  arrangement  of  the  Gr.  But  in 
eifect  this  makes  here  a  considerable  ditlerence.  The  same  thought 
is  conveyed  in  both  ;  but  in  the  former  with  the  simplicity  of 
ihe  original,  wherein  great  plainness  is  used,  but  nothing  that 


416  NOTES  Ox\"  •  cH.  IV. 

savours  of  passion ;  whereas  it  is  impossible  to  read  the  latter 
■without  perceiving  much  of  the  manner  of  a  contemptuous  re- 
proach, and  what  would  have  therefore  more  befitted  the  mouth 
of  a  Pharisee  than  of  our  Lord.  So  much  in  language  depends 
often  on  a  very  small  circumstance.  What  ye  know  not,  contrast, 
ed  to  what  we  know,  implies,  in  the  Heb.  idiom,  not  total  igno- 
rance, but  inferior  knowledge.  Thus /ore  and /ta^reJ  are  op- 
posed (see  L.  xiv.  26.),  to  denote  merely  greater  and  less  love. 
Now,  if  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  were  of  importance  for  con. 
veying  the  knowledge  of  the  perfections  and  will  of  God,  the 
Samaritans,  who  rejected  all  those  writings  (receiving  only  for 
canonical  the  five  books  of  Moses),  must,  on  this  head,  have  been 
more  ignorant  than  the  Jews,  which  is  all  that  our  Saviour's 
Words  imply. 

^  Salvation  is  from  the  Jews. — The  Saviour  or  the  Messiah 
must  be  of  that  nation,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  posterity  of 
David. 

25.  /  know  that  the  Messiah  cometh  ;  (that  is,  the  Christ.). 
Oi^et  on  Msa-trtoii  e^^erxi,  o  AeyojM.fv®-'  X^(s-(^.  E.  T.  /  know  that 
Messias  cometh,  which  is  called  Christ.  In  the  manner  wherein 
the  last  clause,  which  is  called  Christ,  is  here  expressed,  it  ap. 
pears  to  have  been  spoken  by  the  woman  :  yet,  it  is  manifest 
that  that  could  not  have  been  the  case.  Our  Lord  and  the  wo- 
man spoke  a  dialect  of  the  Chaldee,  at  that  time  the  language  of 
the  country,  and  in  the  N.  T.  called  Hebrew,  wherein  Messiah 
was  the  proper  term,  and  consequently  needed  not  to  be  explain- 
ed to  either  into  Greek,  which  they  were  not  speaking,  and 
which  was  a  foreign  language  to  both.  But  it  was  very  proper 
for  the  Evangelist,  who  wrote  in  Greek,  and  in  the  midst  of 
those  who  did  not  understand  Chaldee,  when  introducing  an  Ori- 
ental term,  to  explain  it  for  the  sake  of  his  Gr.  readers.  Ch.  i. 
43.  N. 

27.  That  he  talked  with  a  wotnan,  on  y^tra  yvvoctK(^  iXxTkh.  E. 
T.  That  he  talked  zeith  the  woman.  The  learned  reader  will 
observe,  that  yvv«j»(^  here  has  no  article,  and  is  consequently 
better  rendered  a  woman.  We  need  not  be  surprised  that  it 
should  be  matter  of  wonder  to  the  disciples,  that  their  Master 
was  talking  with  a  zcoman  ;  for  so  great,  at  that  time,  was  the 
pride  of  the  learned,  in  that  nation,  that  they  imagined  that  to 
liave  a  dialogue  with  such,  on  any  serious  and  important  matter. 


CH.  IV.  S.  JOHN.  417 

did  but  ill  suit  the  dignity  and  gravity  which  ought  to  be  ni?i- 
formly  maintained  by  a  rabbi,  or  doctor  of  their  law.  Admit 
that  the  passages  in  proof  of  this,  produced  by  Lightfoot,  from 
the  Talmud  and  rabbinical  writers,  are  unaccountable  and  stupid, 
as  Dod.  angrily  calls  them,  they  are  sufficient  evidence  that  such 
a  sentiment,  however  unaccountable  and  stupid,  prevailed  among 
them.  Now  it  is  the  fact,  the  prevalence  of  the  sentiment,  and 
not  its  reasonableness,  with  which  the  interpreter  is  concerned. 
Further,  that  the  disciples  were  not,  in  any  thing,  superior  to  the 
prejudices  of  the  age,  is  manifest  from  the  whole  of  their  history. 
That  the  woman  was  a  Samaritan,  doubtless,  made  the  thing  more 
astonishing. 

29.  Is  this  the  Messiah  ?  f^^n  iiro^  a-tv  o  X^i^-oi; ;  E.  T.  Is  not 
this  the  Christ  ?  seeMt.  xii.  23.  N.  The  reason  given  by  Knatch- 
bull  for  preferring  the  common  version,  is  far  from  being  deci- 
sive. Though  the  woman's  opinion  had  been  (as  probably  it  was) 
that  our  Lord  was  the  Messiah :  still  it  was  more  becoming  in 
her  to  put  the  question  simply  to  the  men  of  the  city,  Is  this  the 
Messiah  ?  than  in  the  other  way.  Is  not  this  the  Messiah  ? 
which  plainly  suggested  her  own  opinion,  before  she  heard  their's. 
The  internal  evidence,  arising  from  the  scope  of  the  passage  is, 
therefore,  to  say  the  least,  as  favourable  to  this  interpretation  as 
to  the  other  ;  and  the  external  evidence  arising  from  use,  which, 
in  this  case,  ought  to  preponderate,  is  entirely  in  its  favour. 

42.  The  Messiah,  i  X^/s-a?.  This  is  wanting  in  two  or  three 
MSS.  and  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  Ethiop.  and  Sax.  versions. 

44.  \^But  not  to  Nazareth~\.  There  is  a  probability  that 
something  to  this  purpose  has  been  very  early  omitted  in  trans- 
cribing. The  causal  conjunction  yseo,  which  introduces  the  verse, 
shows  that  it  contains  the  reason  of  what  had  immediately  pre- 
ceded. As,  however,  in  regard  to  the  clause  itself,  we  have  no- 
thing more  than  conjecture  from  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  the 
known  historical  facts,  I  have  enclosed  in  crotchets,  the  words 
which  I  thought  it  necessary  to  supply. — By  his  country^  •tt^t^/s, 
is^ommonly  meant  Nazareth,  supposed  to  be  his  native  city,  and 
in  fact  the  place  of  his  early  residence. 

46.  Officer  of  the  court,  p,ec<nXiK6<;.  E.  T.  Nobleman.  Tiie 
Sy.  and  Ara.  render  it  a  servant,  or  minister  of  the  king ;  that 


418  NOTES  ON  CH.  it. 

is,  of  Herod  the  tetrarch  of  Galilee,  commonly  in  that  country 
(whose  language  did  not  supply  words  corresponding  to  all  the 
distinctions  made  by  the  Greeks)  styled  king.  The  Vul.  says 
regulus  ;  but,  in  the  judgment  of  the  best  critics,  the  word  then 
implied  no  more  than  regius,  and  denoted  in  general  an  eminent 
officer  of  the  court.  The  Eng.  word  nobleman  conveys  the  no- 
tion of  hereditary  rank  and  certain  dignities,  to  which  there  was 
nothing  in  Palestine,  or  even  in  Syria,  that  corresponded.  Yet 
all  the  late  Eng.  versions  have  in  this  implicitly  followed  the 
common  translation  ;  and  it  is  remarkable,  that  not  one  of  the 
foreign  versions  I  have  seen,  has  adopted  a  term  answering  to 
that  Eng.  word.     Diss.  VII.  P.  I.  §  5,  6. 

54.  This  second  ?nirade  Jesus  jicrf or  ined  afler  returning  from 
Judeu  to  Galilee,  rare  ttxP^iv  Swrspov  tryifJLeiov  eTroiijO-ev  o  I»j5-»?,  eA^is^v 
tK  Tin  la^ciioii;  £ii  Tr.v  TdXiXoLixv.  E.  T.  This  is  again  the  second 
miracle  that  Jesus  did,  when  he  zi:as  co^ne  out  of  J udea  into 
Galilee.  The  words  of  the  historian  do  not  necessarily  imply 
more  than  that  this,  which  was  the  second  of  our  Lord's  miracles 
in  that  country,  was  performed  after  returning  from  Judea  to 
Galilee ;  the  first  miracle  being  understood  to  be  that  of  turning 
water  into  wine  at  the  marriage  in  Cana.  From  the  way  in  which 
it  is  expressed  in  the  common  version,  we  should  conclude  that 
both  miracles  were  after  the  return  to  Galilee,  which  is  not 
agreeable  to  the  fact  as  related  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  his. 
tory.  The  word  7rx>^p,  whatever  be  the  interpretation,  must  be 
placed  differently.  I  arrange  the  words  in  this  manner :  Tsto 
^evTepov  o-jj,M,e/oii  svoiijTiv  o  ItjO-m,  ttxAiv  eXOav  (k  tjjj  la^utxi  ei?  tjjv  YaXi- 
^uiciv.  It  is  agreeable  to  a  rule  of  universal  grammar,  that,  in 
construing  a  sentence,  the  adverbs  be  joined  to  the  verbs  or  the 
participles.  There  are  here  but  two  of  these,  eTroniTiv  and  exS-uv. 
To  join  TtrxXiv  to  the  former  would  be  absurd,  because  it  would 
represent  the  same  individual  miracle  as  twice  performed.  It 
must,  by  consequence,  be  joined  to  the  latter. 


CH.    V. 


S.  JOHN.  419 


CHAPTER  V. 


2.  There  is,  w.  The  Sy.  seems  to  have  read  jj,  as  it  is  ren- 
dered in  that  version  in  tlie  past.  Cyril,  Chr.  and  The.  favour 
this  reading,  so  does  Nonnus.  If  tolerably  supported,  it  would 
be  accounted  preferable,  as  this  Gospel  was  written  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

^  Nigh  the  sheep-gate,  ctti  ts?  Tpe<?ciTtK>i,  E.  T.  By  the  sheep, 
market.  *{rhis  clause  is  omitted  in  the  Sy.  and  Sax.  versions. 
The  learned  reader  will  observe  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Gr. 
which  answers  to  either  gdte  or  market ;  but  the  word  used,  be- 
ing an  adjective,  requires  some  such  addition  to  complete  the 
sense.  Now,  we  have  good  evidence,  that  one  of  the  gates  of 
Jerusalem  was  called  the  sheep.gate.  See  Nehem.  iii.  1.  &  32. 
xii.  39.  But  we  have  no  evidence  that  any  place  there  was  call- 
ed the  sheep.market.  Be.  renders  the  words  ad portam  pecuari- 
ain  ;  Yi\o.  presso  delta  porta  dclle  pecore ;  P.  R.  Beau.  L.  CI. 
pres  de  la  parte  des  brebis  ;  in  Eng.  the  An.  Hev.  and  Wes.  by  the 
sheep.gate.  The  Vul.  seems  to  have  read  differently.  The  prepo- 
sition iTfi  is  omitted,  and  the  words  TrpoScriKi;  KoXvi^Qyj^pix.  are  read 
as  adjective  and  substantive,  in  the  nominative  case,  est  aiitem 
probaticu piscina  quce  cognoniinatur  IJebraice  Bethsaida.  With 
this  Cas.  partly  agrees  and  partly  diflers.  He  reads  the  preposi- 
tion as  in  the  Gr.  and  'yr^o'^ctTiKti  y.oXvy.av^^oi,,  as  agreeing  in  the 
dative,  est  autem  Ilierosolymis  apiid  oviaricam  piscinam  ea  quce 
Hebraice  Belhesda  ?ni7icupatur.  The  reading  in  the  Vul.  is 
quite  unsupported,  and  therefore  not  worthy  of  regard.  Cas. 
assigns  two  reasons  for  his  interpretation.  One  is,  that  5r^o€'«- 
ri)U)  would  be  without  a  substantive.  Now  it  is  a  known  idiom 
in  Gr.  to  employ  an  adjective  alone,  when  the  substantive  to  be 
supplied  is  easily  suggested  by  the  import  of  the  adjective,  or  by 
frequent  use.  Thus  the  names  of  most  arts  and  sciences  in  Gr. 
are  the  feminines  of  adjectives,  whose  meaning  easily  suggests 
the  word  understood.  Mncnx.)],  for  instance,  ixr^ix.)^^  f^x^f^xriKri, 
Ti^vti  being  understood  to  each  of  the  two  former,  and  i-!Tti-yifAi]  to 
the  last.  The  frequent  conjunction  of  a  particular  substantive 
with  a  particular  adjective,  produces  the  same  effect.  Now,  if  one 


420  NOTES  ON 


tH.  \. 


of  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  was  ever  called  ^  TrPoSctrnt:}  rrvAtj,  as  we 
know  from  the  O.  T.  that  it  was,  nothing  could  be  more  natural 
in  those  who  spoke  Gr.  than  to  drop  ttvAsj  as  superfluous,  and  name 
it  simply  sj'  TrpaQxrucrt.  This  would  happen  still  more  readily,  if 
the  adjective  was  in  a  manner  appropriated  to  that  single  use. 
Now  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  adjective  Tr^oSxrtKoi;  occurs  nowhere 
in  the  N.  T.  but  in  this  passage  ;  and  never  in  the  Old,  but  where 
mention  is  made  of  the  sheep-gate  of  Jerusalem.  'Hf^ipx  kv^ixkh 
occurs  once  in  the  N.  T.  and  is  properly  rendered  the  LorcVs  day 
(Rev.  i.  10.).  The  frequent  appropriation  of  this  distinction  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  the  custom  arising  thence,  of  con- 
ceiving yji^ipa,  as  closely  connected  with  nvpixKi;,  brought  people 
gradually  to  drop  tif^e^x  as  unnecessary,  being  what  the  hearers 
knowledge  and  habits  would  readily  supply.  In  this  manner 
KvptciXTj  alone  in  Gr.  and  dominica  in  Lat.  came  to  signify  the 
Lord^s  day.  B«t5-<A/jto?,  in  the  former  chapter,  which  signifies  an 
officer  of  the  court,  is  properly  an  adjective  in  the  masculine, 
answering  to  regius  in  Lat.  and  royal  in  Eng.  To  make  the 
expression  complete,  we  must  supply  av,9-f»?n)?.  In  like  manner 
^xTtXem  (L.  vii.  25.),  the  neuter  gender  of /3a50-<AE/9?,  an  adjective 
of  the  same  signification,  has  come  to  denote  a  royal  palace. 
The  word  ottciini^idv,  or  some  other  neuter  of  the  same  import,  has 
been  joined  with  it  at  first,  but  afterwards  overlooked  as  useless. 
Take  the  following  examples  for  a  specimen  from  the  Gospels, 
Mt.  vi.  3,  --;'  etpirs^x,  scilicet  ^st^y  the  left  hand,  x.  42.  vortipiov 
•f^v^^a,  scilicet  v^xrix;,  a  cup  of  cold  water.  L.  i.  39.  en  Ty,v  opeim, 
scilicet  yju^M,  into  the  hill  country.  J.  xx.  12.  fv  XevKoii,  scilicet 
Jitt^ns/?,  in  white  garments.  Castalio's  other  objection  against 
the  common  rendering  is,  that  it  appropriates  the  name  Bethesda, 
which  signifies  the  house  of  mercy,  improperly  to  a  pool  or  bath, 
which  cannot,  in  any  sense,  be  denominated  a  house.  I  answer, 
first,  that  though  Beth,  the  first  part  of  the  name  Bethesda,  de- 
notes commonly  a  house  ;  yet  when  such  terms  are  compounded 
with  others  in  forming  a  proper  name,  they  ought  not  to  be  so 
strictly  interpreted.  The  place  to  which  Jacob  first  gave  the 
name  Bethel,  that  is,  the  house  of  God,  Gen.  xxviii.  10,  &c.  was 
evidently  at  the  time  a  place  in  the  open  fields,  where  he  had 
slept  all  night,  with  a  stone  for  bis  pillow,  and  had  the  dream  of 
the  ladder.  That  there  Avas  then  in  the  vicinity,  or  afterwards 
perhaps  upon  the  spot,  a  city  which  was  first  called   Ljcz,  and 


CH.  V.  S.  JOHN.  421 

probably  after  the  division  of  the  country  by  Joshua,  Bethel^  in 
memory  of  what  had  there  happened  to  the  Patriarch,  is  readily 
admitted.  When  Beth  made  part  of  the  name  of  a  city,  there 
was  a  plain  deviation  from  the  primitive  meaning  of  the  word. 
Yet  nothing  was  more  common.  Beihli  hem^  the  city  of  David,  de. 
notes  the  house  of  bread.  What  was  called  by  the  Greeks  Helio~ 
poiis,  the  city  of  the  sun,  was  in  Heb.  Bethshemesh^  the  house  of 
the  sun.  I  answer,  2dly,  That  we  ought  not  to  confine  the  signifi- 
cation of  KoXvf^<?7j3-pu  to  the  water  collected,  but  ought  to  consider 
it  as  including  the  covered  walks,  and  all  that  had  been  built  for 
the  accommodation  of  those  who  came  thither.  In  this  extent 
the  word  bath  is  familiarly  used  by  oursefves.  I  have  preferred 
the  name  bath  to  pool,  as  more  suitable  to  the  purpose  to  which 
this  water  was  appropriated. 

4.  Several  MSS,  to  xyyePiog  add  xvpia.  Vul.  Angelus  Domini^ 
followed  by  the  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions. 

16.  And  sought  to  kill  him,  x.m  ((^'^tuv  uvtov  ccttoktbivxi.  This 
clause  is  not  in  the  Cam.  and  some  other  MSS.  of  note.  It  is 
wanting  also  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions. 

18.  By  calling  God  peculiarly/  his  Father,  had  equalled  him. 
self  with  God,  ttxti^x  toiov  sXeys  rov  ©eev,  itov  ixvrov  Totav  ru  @eM. 
Vul.  Patrem  suiwi  dicebat  Deum,  cequalem  se  faciens  Deo.  E. 
T.  Said  also  that  God  zsas  his  Father,  making  himself  equal 
with  God.  On  a  little  reflection  it  must  be  evident  that  the 
sense  is,  in  both  these  versions,  imperfectly  expressed.  For  how 
could  those  men  say  that  Jesus,  by  calling  God  his  father,  made 
himself  equal  with  God  ?  There  must,  therefore,  be  here  some- 
thing peculiar  and  energetic  in  the  word  i^io?.  The  expression 
in  most  familiar  use  would  have  been  ttxts^ci  Ixvra.  And,  though 
I  am  far  from  saying  that  there  are  not  many  cases  in  which 
either  expression  may  be  used  indifferently,  there  are  some  in 
which  ihoi  is  more  emphatical,  and  others  in  which  it  would  not 
be  strictly  proper.  Be.'s  explanation  of  the  word  is  very  just; 
suiim,  iS'iav,  id  est  sibi proprium  acpeculiarem.  In  this  view  the 
import  of  the  words  is,  that  God  is  father  to  him  in  a  sense 
wherein  he  is  father  to  no  other.  Let  it  be  observed,  however, 
that  if  the  scope  of  the  context  did  not  necessarily  lead  to  this 
conclusion,  I  should  not  infer  so  much  from  the  mere  applica- 
tion of  the  word  i$ia<; :  for  though  this  is  strictly  the  import  of 

VOL.    IT,  53 


422  NOTES  ON  ch.  ?. 

the  term,  it  is  often,  like  many  other  words,  employed  -with 
greater  latitude.  Perhaps,  on  a  superficial  view,  I  shall  be 
thought  in  this  to  concur  with  a  writer  who,  in  support  of  a  fa- 
vourite hypothesis,  has  thus  explained  the  precept  (1  Cor.  vii. 
2.),  exars}  tov  i^i6\i  av^^a  i^c^rea^  "  Let  every  married  woman  have 
"  the  man  appropriated  to  her  exclusively  of  all  other  men  upon 
"'  earth."  If,  instead  of  men.  he  had  said  women,  he  would  have 
hit  the  sense  entirely,  and  suited  the  explanation  here  given  of 
the  word.  As  it  stands,  there  is  an  indistinctness  in  the  ex- 
pression, which  serves  only  to  darken  it.  The  exclusion  of 
other  men  in  this  explanation,  must  satisfy  every  one  that  the 
words  the  man  appropriated  to  her,  are  used,  by  what  figure  I 
know  not,  for  the  man  to  zchom  she  is  appropriated  ;  for  he  is 
not  at  all  appropriated  to  her,  if  he  may  have  other  wives  ;  but 
she  is  manifestly  appropriated  to  Itini,  if  she  cannot  have  another 
husband.  This  strange  confusion  in  theuseof  words,  is  frequent 
with  that  writer.  Thus,  a  little  after,  "  The  word  <<J/«?,"  he 
says,  "  seems  to  denote  such  an  appropriation  of  the  husband  to 
the  wife ;"  (who  would  not  exjject  it  to  follow,  as  that  he  could 
not  have,  or  go  to  any  other  woman  ?  but  hear  himself,)  "  as 
"that  she  could  not  have,  or  go  to  any  other  man."  Now  this 
shows  merely  the  appropriation  of  the  wife  to  the  husband,  but 
by  no  means  the  appropriation  of  the  husband  to  the  wife.  \ho% 
is,  by  this  account,  made  synonymous  with  /ttov«5,  so  that  i^ioq 
uyyjf  means  her  only  husband,  ^y  the  same  rule,  in  the  parable 
of  the  compassionate  Samaritan,  who  is  said  (L.  x.  34.)  to  have 
set  the  wounded  Jew  £^<  to  i^iov  KTjjva?,  we  ought  to  render  these 
words,  not  on  his  oxjon  beast,  but  on  his  only  beast :  or,  to  de- 
fine it  in  this  critic's  own  terms,  the  beast  appropriated  to  him 
exclusively  of  all  other  beasts  upon  earth.  And  to  give  one 
other  instance;  where  we  have  in  the  E.  T.  (L.  vi.  41.),  but 
perceivest  not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye,  the  words  ev 
TO)  1^16)  o(p6xX!A.u  ought  to  be  rendered  in  thine  only  eye.  Let  it 
be  observed  that  the  term  i^kx;  is  always  conceived  as  denoting 
the  person  or  thing  appropriated,  not  the  proprietary.  In  this 
view  /J<e5  is  opposed  to  Koiv^? ;  so  that  in  strictness  I  have  no  title 
to  call  any  thing  ihov  which  I  enjoy  in  common  with  others  ;  that 
this  is  agreeable  to  scriptural  usage,  we  learn  from  Acts,  iv.  32. 
Hob    £/?  T<  76)v  uTrap^ovrav  eXeytv  latov  iivxt'  otXX'  tjv  ctvroii  uvcxmtx  jcetvx. 

Neither  said  any  of  them,  that  ou^ht  of  the  things  which  he  pas- 


CH.  V.  S.  JOHN.  423 

sessed  zcas  his  own  ;  but  they  had  all  things  common.  If  so,  no 
woman  can  call  any  man  ihoi  ccvtip,  her  own,  whom  she  has  for  a 
husband  in  common  with  other  women :  for  such  a  man,  in  re- 
gard to  his  wives,  is  uvrxi^  ttxitxii;  Komi,  and  consequently  uk^b- 
H.ia.i  otvrm  iSkk;.  To  apply  this  to  the  controverted  passage :  the 
sense  may  be  justly  expressed  by  the  periphrasis  quoted  from 
Beza,  iinnquccque  habeat  virnm  sibi  propriuin  ac  peculiurem  : 
in  English,  Lit  every  zoo/nan  hnelhe  husband  oppropriutLd  and 
peculiar  to  herself.  If  the  case  had  been  reversed,  and  the  Apos- 
tle had  said  tKot^oi;  Ty,y  leixv  ywxty.x  i^em  y.xt  t-/,x^7j  rov  sscj/r^j;  xvo^x^ 
it  might  have  been  pleaded  with  some  plausibility,  that  the  wo- 
Bian  was  represented  as  the  man's  property,  who  has  an  exclu- 
sive right  to  her,  whereas  the  man  was  mentioned  merely  as  her 
husband.  For  my  part,  I  acknowledge  that,  in  such  general 
precepts,  the  two  phrases  are  commonly  equivalent,  that  the 
marriage  bond  Is  reciprocal,  and  that  if  there  has  been  here  aa 
intentional  dift'erence  in  applying  those  expressions,  the  Apostle 
must  have  judged  it  necessary,  from  the  circumstances  of  the 
times,  to  signify,  in  a  more  explicit  manner,  the  appropriation 
of  the  husband  to  the  wife,  than  that  of  the  wife  to  the  husband. 
From  the  corrupt  customs  that  then  prevailed  among  both  Jews 
and  Pagans,  there  must  have  been  greater  need  to  inculcate  on 
Christian  husbands  than  on  Christian  wives,  that  the  marriage 
bond  confined  each  of  them  to  one,  and  that  if  the  men  challeng- 
ed a  property  in  their  wives,  it  could  be  in  no  other  sense  ad. 
mitted  than  in  that  wherein  the  women  were  entitled  to  chal- 
lenge a  property  in  their  husbands.  That  author,  therefore,  has 
been  exceedingly  unlucky  in  urging  theemphatical  import  of  t hog 
in  the  precept  above  mentioned  :  for  it  is  manifest  that  the  em- 
phasis, if  allowed,  must  subvert  his  whole  theory.  His  only  re- 
source, therefore,  is  that  of  those  who,  though  they  have  over- 
looked this  blunder  in  his  reasoning,  have  so  learnedly  criticised 
his  work,  and  who  affirm,  with  truth,  that  such  expressions  are 
often  used  indiscriminately.  In  this  way  he  may  obtain  a  neu- 
trality from  a  quarter  otherwise  hostile.  That  author  thinks  it 
remarkable,  awd,  I  own,  1  think  so  too,  that  it  is  always  in  the  N. 
T  thoi  ctvj;^,  and  never  thx  yvw, ;  nor,  can  I  give  any  account  of  a 
use  so  much  in  favour  of  the  weaker  sex,  but  w  hat  has  been  alrea- 
dy suggested.  There  was  no  danger  that  any  woman  should 
think  herself  entitled  to  a  plurality  of  husbands,  a  thing  repug- 
nant to  the  laws  and  customs  of  all  nations  _:  but  there  was  g,reat 


424  NOTES  ON  ch.  ▼. 

danger,  that  there  might  be  men  who  would  claim  a  plurality  of 
wives.  This  is  the  more  worthy  of  notice  in  the  writers  of  the 
N.  T.  as  no  such  expression  occurs  so  much  as  once  in  the  ver- 
sion of  the  O.  T.  by  the  Seventy.  It  is  there  invariably  ccvrj^  etv- 
Tjj?  or  f^t;T»f5,  never  tho^  ccvti^'.  for,  during  that  dispensation,  it 
must  be  owned,  things  stood  on  a  different  footing.  Nor  could 
the  obligations  which  married  persons  were,  by  positive  law, 
brought  under,  be  said  to  have  been  perfectly  reciprocal ;  for 
the  wife  could  not  then  claim  the  same  exclusive  property  in  her 
husband,  as  at  present.  But,  to  return  from  what  may  be  thought 
a  digression  :  though  of  consequence  for  ascertaining  the  import 
of  the  term,  1  have  not  rendred  -xot.rifcf.  /^<o»,  with  most  moderns, 
Ms  ownjather^  because  the  word  ozcwadds  nothing  to  the  import 
of  the  possessive  his ;  it  serves  only  to  fix  the  attention  on  this 
circumstance.  The  adverb  peculiarly  seems  much  better  adapt- 
ed here  to  supply  the  defect. 

20.  Which  ziill  astonish  you,  Im  uf*,iig  B-xvf^ei^iiTe.  Mt.  i.  22.  ^N. 

22.  Having  committed  the  poxscer  of  judging  entirely  to  the 
Son^  ctXXoi  frit  x^ia-iv  Trcorocv  ^iScDtce  ru  Ctta.  E.  T.  But  hath  commit- 
ted  all  judgment  unto  the  Son.  There  are  two  Greek  words, 
Kfirii;  andxf/jttos,  which  are  commonly  rendered  judgment.  They 
are  not  synonymous,  though  sometimes  used  indiscriminately. 
Kpie-ii  expresses  more  properly  the  power  and  even  act  of  judg- 
ing, judicatio  ;  icpif^x  the  effect,  judicium,  the  sentence  pro- 
nounced, or  even  the  punishment  inflicted.  Our  Eng.  word 
judgment  is  too  indefinite  to  convey  distinctly  our  Lord's  mean- 
ing in  this  place.  It  is  the  version  rather  of  K^if^x  than  of  K^ia-ii. 
The  Fr.  translators,  L.  Cl.  Beau.  P.  R.  Sa.  Si.  render  ttmo-xv  x.pi. 
<rt9,  tout  pouvoir  dejuger. 

27.  Because  he  is  a  son  of  man,  on  iiei  xvdpwrH  ertv.  E.  T. 
Because  he  is  the  son  of  man.  It  is  observed  by  Markland, 
(Bowyer's  Conjectures),  that  it  is  not  here  d  w<o?  ra  uvB-^uTra,  the 
humble  appellation  by  which  our  Lord  commonly  distinguished 
himself,  but  simply  vm  ecvS-puTrn,  without  any  article,  a  common 
Hebraism,  and  still  more  common  Syriasm,  for  a  man,  a  human 
being.  This  phraseoccurs  in  the  same  sense,  Dan.  vii.  13.  and  Rev. 
i.  13.  and  ought  to  be  so  rendered;  but  it  occurs  nowhere  in  the 
Gospels,  except  in  this  passage.  None  of  the  Eng.  translations 
I  have  seen  mark  this  distinction  ;  but  it  has  been  attended  to  by 
some  foreign  translators.  Dio.  Inquanto  egli  ejigliuol  d^huomo. 


CH.  V.  S.  JOHN".  425 

G.  F.  Entant  qii'il  est  fils  de  Phomme.  L.  Ci.  P.  R.  and  Sa. 
say  also^^5  de  Vhomnie^  without  the  article.  Diss.  V.  P.  IV. 
§  13.  It  will,  perhaps,  be  asked,  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
clause  here,  because  he  is  a  son  of  man?  In  my  judgment,  the 
import  may  be  expressed  in  this  manner — '  because  it  suits  the 

*  ends  of  divine  wisdom,  that  the  Judge,  as  well  as  Saviour,  of 

*  men,  should  himself  be  man.' 

27,  28.  And  hath  given  him  even  the  judicial  aufhoriti/,  be- 
cause he  is  a  son  of  man.  Wonder  not  at  this.,  km  e^ac-txv  e^eoKi* 
eivra  7^  xptTtv  tthhv^  oti  Clog  xvS-^UTra  crt  ;  Mjj  B-uvfiM^ere  tsto.  Four 
inconsiderable  MSS.  make  a  small  difterence  in  the  pointing 
which  alters  the  sense.  They  make  a  full  stop  at  Troieiv,  and  re- 
moving the  point  at  £«■<,  join  the  words  art  Ctoi  ctvS-^uTra  es-i  to  ^ai 
B-dvi^x^ers  tuto.  V.  28.  Differences  merely  in  pointing  are  com- 
paratively modern,  as  all  the  oldest  and  best  have  no  points. 
Both  the  Sy.  versions  adopt  this  manner,  and  seem  also  to  have 
read  Jt  after  art.  But  these  can  give  no  support  to  a  reading, 
■which,  in  itself,  is  less  natural  than  the  common  one. 

31.  Mj/  testimony  is  not  to  be  regarded.,  t}  /^uprv^tx  f^a  hk  es-o 
«,M6vi<;.  E.  T.  My  zcitness  is  not  true.  In  every  country  where 
there  are  standing  laws,  and  a  regular  constitution,  there  is  what 
is  called  a  forensic  or  juridical  use  of  certain  words,  which  dif- 
fers considerably  from  familiar  use.  I  observed  something  of 
this  kind  in  regard  to  ^ix-xiog  (Mt,  xxvii.  24.  N.),  which,  in 
the  style  of  the  law,  means  not  guilty  of  the  crime  charged.  The 
like  holds  of  the  word  aA^^j;?,  which,  when  used  in  reference  to 
the  procedure  in  judicatories,  denotes,  not  what  is  in  itself  true, 
but  what  is  proved,  or  is  supported  by  legal  proof.  Thus,  it  is 
said,  that  a  man's  testimony  of  himself  is  not  true.  A  man  may 
certainly  give  a  true  testimony  of  himself;  but  in  law  it  is  not 
evidence.,  and  is  therefore  held  as  untrue.  This  sense  of  the 
word  ocAjjfljis  often  occurs  in  this  Gospel.  Now,  as  such  peculi- 
arities, in  any  tongue,  have  an  awkward  appearance  when  trans, 
lated  into  another,  I  have  thought  it  more  eligible  to  convey  the 
sense  with  as  little  circumlocution  as  possible.  Hey.  and  Wes. 
say  valid:  but  this  term  does  not  give  the  exact  meaning. 

35.  He  was  the  lighted  and  shining  lamp.,  eKHvag  tiv  o  Af;^vo?  o 
Kxtof*.£voi  KXi  (pxivuv.  E.  T.  He  wus  a  burning  and  a  shining  light. 
Not  only  our  traHslators,  but  the  much  greater  number  of  mo- 


426  NOTES  ON  cii.  'n 

dern  translators,  have  entirely  overlooked  the  article  in  this 
place.  Yet  the  structure  of  the  sentence,  and  the  repetition  of 
the  article  before  the  participle  jcctfont^ve;,  serve  to  draw  our  atten- 
tion to  it.  it  ouglit  to  be  remembered,  that  John's  ministry  was 
of  a  [jflculiar  character  :  that  he  was  the  single  Prophet  in  whom 
the  old  dispensation  had  its  completion,  and  by  whom  the  new 
was  introduced;  that,  therefore,  until  our  Lord's  ministry  took 
place,  John  may  justly  be  said  to  have  been  the  light  of  that 
generation.  Perhaps  there  is  an  allusion  here  to  the  expression 
in  the  Psalms,  cxxxii.  (or,  as  it  is  in  the  Gr.  cxxxi.)  17.  jjVo<- 
f^.xT-ci  ru  xP'^^  f^^  Av;t;vov,  and  consequently  an  insinuation  that  this 
was  the  lamp  which  God  had  provided  according  to  his  promise. 
The  only  modern  interpreters  1  know,  who  have  added  the  arti- 
cle here,  are  Dio.  in  Itn.  and  Si.  in  Fr. 

^  Lighted,  KatoyL'.vov.  E.  T.  Burning.  The  verb  kuisiv  signi- 
fies to  light,  to  kindle,  to  hum.  When  it  is  construed  with  Xv^- 
vos,  >iCiiA.7roK;,  or  any  other  such  term,  it  is  properly  to  light,  and 
is,  or  may  be,  always  so  rendered.  See  Mt.  v.  15.  L.  xii.  35. 
But  some  are  of  opinion,  that  the  word  burning,  as  coupled  here 
with  shining,  is  much  more  expressive;  inasmuch  as  it  superadds 
to  knowledge  an  ardour,  zeal,  or  good  allection  in  the  service  of 
God  ;  and  are  convinced,  that  the  one  epithet  alludes  to  the  at- 
tractive influence  of  John's  example,  and  the  other  to  the  per- 
spicuity of  his  instructions.  To  this  most  paraphrasts,  as  Clarke 
and  Dod.  seem  to  have  attended.  But  I  am  not  satisfied  that,  in 
the  original,  there  is  any  allusion  of  this  kind.  A  lamp  is  used, 
not  for  warming  people,  but  for  giving  them  light.  To  me,  in 
the  word  Kxiof^svev,  there  appears  rather  a  suggestion  of  the  divine 
illumination  of  the  Baptist.  The  light  which  was  kept  always 
burning  in  the  sanctuary,  and  which  came  originally  from  hea- 
ven, was,  in  the  judgment  of  the  rabbles,  an  emblem  of  the  light 
of  prophecy.  To  many  of  our  Lord's  hearers,  therefore,  the 
word  x.«/<5/.'.£vov  would  not  appear  an  insignificant  epithet,  but 
an  apposite  suggestion  of  the  source  whence  John  derived  his 
doctrine. 

.3?,  38.  Did  ye  never  hear  his  voice,  or  see  his  form?  Or 
have  ye  forgotten  his  declaration,  that  ye  believe  not  him  zzhoni 
he  hath  commissioned?  an  (pur/iv  avra  uKmectrs  TruTroTi,  are  «i^®- 
uvra  lu^ctyMTi.  Ka<  rsv  Aeyav  uvra  ax,  i^ere  f^cevovrci  iv  ufi.!v'  on  ov 
aTrsreiMy  £k«v'^-',   Turtv  vy^<:-ii  a  Trcrivirs.      E.  T.    Ye  have  neither 


cir.  V. 


S.  JOHN.  427 


heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor  seen  his  shape.  And  ye  have  not 
his  word  abiding  in  you  :  for  whom  he  hath  sent,  him  ye  believe 
not.  The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  two  clauses  which  are  ren- 
dered in  the  E.  T.  as  declarations,  are  in  this  version  translated  as 
questions.  The  diflerence  in  the  original  is  only  in  the  pointing. 
That  they  ought  to  be  so  read,  we  need  not,  in  my  opinion, 
stronger  evidence,  than  that  they  throw  much  light  upon  the 
■whole  passage,  which,  read  in  the  common  way,  is  both  dark  and 
ill  connected.  See  an  excellent  note  on  this  passage  from  Mr. 
Turner  of  Wakclield  (Priestley's  Harmony,  sect,  xl.).  Our 
Lord  here  refers  them  to  the  testimony  given  of  him  at  his  bap- 
tism, when  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  on  him  in  a  visible  form, 
and  when  God,  with  an  audible  voice,  declared  him  to  be  his  be- 
loved son  and  our  law-giver,  whom  we  ought  to  hear  and  obey. 
What  has  chiefly  contributed  to  mislead  interpreters,  in  regard 
to  the  import  of  this  sentence,  is  the  resemblance  which  it  bears 
to  what  is  said,  ch.  i.  18.  &sov  a^m  'e&)pxH.e  7r6)7roT£,  no  one  ever 
saw  God ;  and,  ch.  vi.  46.  ovx,'  on  rav  Trxrepoi  rti  Im^oik;,  not  that 
any  one  hath  seen  the  Father.  There  is,  however,  a  difference 
in  the  expressions  ;  for  it  is  not  said  here,  ovre  rov  7ru.Tiox,,  but 
ovrs  £i^(^  xvTov  lu^xKciTi.  This,  it  may  be  thought,  as  it  seems 
to  ascribe  a  body  to  God,  must  be  understood  in  the  same  way  ; 
for  we  are  told,  Deut.  iv.  12.  that,  when  the  Lord  spake  to  the 
people  out  of  the  fire,  they  savs^  no  similitude.  Of  this  they  are 
again  reminded,  verse  15.  But  tlie  word  in  the  Sep.  is,  in  both 
places,  not  «(J(S)-  but  if^uMf^x,  which,  in  scriptural  use,  appears  to 
denote  a  figure  so  distinct  and  permanent,  as  that  it  may  be  re- 
presented in  stone,  wood,  or  metal.  Now,  though  this  is  not  to 
he  attributed  to  God,  the  sacred  writers  do  not  scruple  to  call 
the  visible  symbol  which. God,  on  any  occasion,  employs  for  im- 
pressing men  more  strongly  with  a  sense  of  his  presence,  «J'(^ 
avrs,  which  (for  want  of  a  better  term)  I  have  rendered  his  form. 
Thus  the  Evangelist  L.  says,  ch.  iii.  22.  in  relating  that  signal 
transaction  which  is  here  alluded  to,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  de. 
.scended  upon  Jesus,  <ro)iA.ctriKu  etht,  in  a  bodily  form.  Thus,  also 
the  word  hS®-  is  applied  to  the  appearances  which  God  made  to 
men,  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  His  appearance  in  fire  upon 
Mount  Sinai,  is  called  by  the  Seventy,  Ex.  xxiv,  17.  to  «(J'©- 
r>j;  <J3|;;5  Kvpiov  ;  in  our  Bible,  the  sight  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord ; 
more  properly,  the  glorious  form  or  appearance  of  the  Lord.  In 


428  NOTES  ON  ch.  t, 

like  manner,  the  word  h$<^  is  applied  to  the  symbol  of  the  divine 
presence,  which  the  Israelites  enjoyed  in  the  wilderness,  the  cloud 
which  covered  the  tabernacle  in  the  day-time,  and  appeared  as 
fire  in  the  night,  Num.  ix.  15,  16.     And,  to  mention  but  one 
other  instance,  the  display  which  he  made  to  Moses,  when  he 
conversed  with  him  face  to  face,  is,  in  the  E.  T.  said  to  be  appa. 
rently^  Num.  xii.  8.  ;  but  in  the  Sept.  a  eJh,  that  is,  in  uform 
or  visible  Jigure.    Thus,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  there  is  a 
manifest  difierence  between  seeing  God,  which  no  man  ever  did, 
he  being  in  himself  a  pure  spirit,  and  seeing  his  form,  to  «,J®- 
avTn,  the  appearance  which,  at  any  time,  in  condescension  to  the 
weakness  of  his  creatures,  he  pleases  to  assume.     Another  evi- 
dence, if  necessary,  might  be  brought  to  show  that  there  was  no 
intention  here  to  express  the  invisibility  of  the  divine  ni'ture  ; 
and  is  as  follows  :  the  clause  which  appears  to  have  been  so  much 
misunderstood,  is  coupled  with  this  other,  are  t^myiv  ecvm  «xj)xo«t£ 
-ruTToTs.     Can  we  imagine  that  the  impossible  would  have  been 
thus  conjoined  with  what  is  commonly  mentioned  as  a  privilege 
often  enjoyed  by  God's  people,  and  to  which  their  attention  is 
required  as  a  duty  ?   For  though  we  are  expressly  told,  that  no 
man  ever  saw  God,  it  is  nowhere  said  that  no  man  ever  heard 
his  voice.     Nay,  in  the  very  place  above  quoted,  Deut.  iv.  12. 
where  we  are  informed  that  the  people  saw  no  similitude,  ofMiaueCf 
it  is  particularly  mentioned  that  they  heard  the  voice.     To  con- 
clude :  there  is  the  greater  probability  in  the  explanation  which 
I  have  given  of  the  words,  as  all  the  chief  circumstances  attend- 
ing that  memorable  testimony  at  his  baptism  are  exactly  pointed 
out,— the  miraculous  voice  from  heaven,  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  a  bodily  form,  and  the  declaration  itself  then  given. 
Dr.  Clarke  seems  to  have  had  some  apprehension  of  this  mean- 
ing: for,  though,  in  his  paraphrase,  he  explains  the  words  in  the 
usual  way,  he,  in  a  parenthesis,  takes  notice  of  the  two  striking 
circumstances,  the  voice  and  the  form  at  our  Lord's  baptism. 
That  what  is  called  his  word,  or  declaration,  verse  38th,  refers 
to  the  same  thing,  is  evident:  for,  otherwise,  it  would  coincide 
Avith  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  which  is  not  introduced  till 
verse  39th. 

39.  Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  cpewotre  t«;  yf«(^«?.  E.  T. 
Search  the  Scriptures.  The  words  of  the  Evangelist  may  be  in- 
terpreted either  way,  or  even  as  an  interrogation.— JDo^V^  search  ? 


S.  JOHN.  428 

The  translator's  only  rule,  in  such  cases,  is  the  connection.  To 
me  it  is  evident,  that  nothing  suits  this  so  well  as  the  indicat.ve. 
All  agree,  that  «  !^eXere  eXSnv,  which  is  coupled  to  the  former  verb 
by  the  conjunction  ^,  is  an  indicative.  Yet  this  is  hardly  con- 
sistent with  propriety,  if  epm^rs  be  not.  Besides,  the  whole 
reasoning  is  rendered  weaker  by  the  vulgar  interpretation.  It 
is  entirely  suitable  to  say,  Ye  search  because  ye  think  thereby 
to  obtain— Ye  act  thus,  in  conformity  to  a  fixed  opinion.  But 
if  the  words  be  understood  as  a  command,  it  is  not  a  cogent  ar- 
gument. Search,  because  ye  think,  for  men  may  be  mistaken  in 
their  thoughts;  but  search,  because  ye  can  thereby  obtain.  In 
Sy.  and  La.  the  words  have  the  same  ambiguity  as  in  Gr.  In  Fr. 
L.  CI.  Beau,  and  P.  R.  render  it,  as  here,  by  the  indicative ;  and 
in  Eng.  the  An.  Dod.  Hey.  and  Wor.  It  has  been  said,  that  the 
second  person  plural  of  the  present  of  the  indicative,  beginning  a 
sentence,  and  not  preceded  by  the  pronoun,  is  to  be  understood 
as  a  question.  If  it  be  not  a  question,  the  verb  must  be  read 
imperatively.  In  contradiction  to  this,  many  clear  examples 
from  Scripture,  have  been  produced  by  former  expositors. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

11.  To  those  who  had  lain  dow)i,roti  y^ci^rMi'  ci  ^e  (M^^rxi 
-rot,  Imy^Hf^i^ci,.  E.  T.  To  the  disciples,  and  the  disciples  to  them 
that  were  set  down.  The  words  ran  f^cce^jTc^ig-  it  ^e  f^6y,rcci,  are 
wanting  in  a  few  MSS.  of  which  the  Al.  is  one.  There  is  no- 
thing answering  to  them  in  any  of  the  following  versions  :  the 
Vul.  the  two  Sy.  Go.  Sax.  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  and  Ara.  Nonnus 
omits  them  ;  so  does  Origen.  I  confess,  that  the  principal  rea. 
son  for  rejecting  this  clause,  is  the  almost  unanimous  testimony 
of  ancient  versions  against  it.  Several  interpolations  of  little 
consequence  have  arisen  from  the  indiscreet  zeal  of  transcribers, 
in  supplying  what  they  thought  deficient  in  one  Gospel  out  of 
another.  Of  this,  the  present  clause,  taken  from  Mt.  xiv.  19. 
appears  to  be  an  example. 

I'i.  In  this  and  the  two  following  verses,  is  contained  a  seiu 
tence  more  involved  than  any  other  in  this  Gospel.     Indeed,  it 
is  so  unlike  the  composition  of  this  Evangelist,  as  to  give  ground 
voT-  IV  ■''4 


4S0  NOTES  OI>r  ^ih  vj. 

to  suspect  that  it  has  been  injured  in  transcribing.  This  writer 
often,  indeed,  uses  tautologies  ;  but,  exrept  in  this  passage,  they 
occasion  no  darkness  or  perplexity.  The  clause,  exc-tvo  «;  o  m- 
f}}«-«v  01  fA,x6iirxi  ocvra — E.  T.  that  zokerein  his  disciples  were  en- 
tered— is  not  in  the  Al.  nor  in  some  other  MSS.  There  is  no 
corresponding  clause  in  the  Vul.  Go.  Sax.  Cop.  Eth.  and  Ara. 
Tersions  ;  nor  in  Nonnus.  Ben.  and  Mill  reject  it.  The  Sy.  has 
read  the  clause,  but  avoided  the  tautology,  by  omitting  the  fol- 
lowing clause  in  this  verse,  to  the  same  purpose — xXXu.  f^ovoi  ot 
f/.yJ}iTcct  ccvTs  uTs-itXdev.  I  have  adopted  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  a* 
preferable  upon  the  whole. 

27.  For  to  him  the  Father^  that  zs,  God^  hath  given  his  attes- 
tation^ TUTov  yctp  o  TTxr-/)^  sa-tp^ciyia-ev^  \  Q£®~>.  E.  T.  For  him  hath 
God  the  Father  sealed.  By  the  manner  in  which  'o  ©£©-,  God, 
is  introduced  in  the  end  of  the  sentence,  it  is  manifestly  done  in 
explanation  of  'o  Trartj^  ;  accordingly,  the  sentence  is  complete  be- 
fore that  word  is  added.  It  was  the  more  pertinent  here  to  add 
it,  as  our  Lord,  in  the  preceding  part  of  the  sentence,  is  called 
the  Son  of  Man.  It  might,  therefore,  be  supposed,  that,  by  the 
Father,  who  vouched  him,  is  meant  some  human  being.  The  ad- 
dition, 'o  ©£©-,  that  is,  God,  entirely  precludes  this  mistake. 
The  Father  was  a  title  from  the  earliest  ages  given  to  the  Deity, 
to  distinguish  him  as  the  universal  parent,  or  author  of  all  things. 

31.  He  gave  them  bread  of  heaven  to  eat,  a^rov  ex  ts  apctva  tSu. 
xev  uvTeii  <pet,yeiv.  E.  T.  He  gave  them  bread  from  heaven  to  eat. 
The  words  are  capable  of  being  translated  either  way.  But  bread 
of  heaven  appears  to  me  an  expression  of  greater  energy  than 
bread  from  heaven.  Besides,  it  is  more  suitable  to  the  passage 
in  the  Psalms  referred  to,  where  it  is  called  corn  of  heaven,  and 
angePs  food. 

32.  Moses  did  not  give  you  the  bread  of  heaven,  ov  MuFy^i  ^e- 
SeoKiv  If^tv  Tov  aprov  ex  m  apxva.  E.  T.  Moses  gave  i/ou  not  that 
bread  from  heaven.  Here,  though  the  diflerence  in  expression 
is  but  small,  the  difference  in  meaning  is  considerable.  The  kit- 
ter  seems  to  point  only  to  the  place  whence  the  manna  came. 
The  pronoun  that,  which  is  quite  unwarranted,  conduces  much 
to  this  appearance.  The  former  points  to  the  true  nature  of  that 
extraordinary  food.  Our  Lord's  declaration,  as  I  imagine,  im- 
ports, that  it  is  in  a  subordinate  sense  only  that  what  dropped 


CH.  vi.  ».  JGffN"/'  431 

from  the  clouds,  and  was  sent  for  theaymrishDiiBnt  of  the  body^ 
still  mortal,  could  be  called  the  ^read  of  heaven,  being  but  a 
type  of  that  which  hath  descended ""/rom  the  heaven  of  heavens, 
for  nourishing  the  immortal  soul  unto  eternal  life,  and  which  is, 
therefore,  in  the  most  sublime  sense,  the  bread  of  heaven. 

33.  That  zchick  descendeth  from  heaven,  'e  KxrxQocimv  m.  ry 
spdva.  E.  T.  He  zcho  cometh  down  from  heaven,  j^et  it  be 
observed,  that  'o  a/ir©-,  to  whi(?h  this  participle  refers,  is  of  the 
mascijljno  gender,  and,  by  consequence,  susceptible  of  the  inter- 
pretation I  have  given  it.  Let  ft  be  further  observed,  that  this 
whole  discourse  is  figurative,  and' that  it  appears,  from  what  fol- 
lows, that  our  Lord  meant  not  at  once  to  lay  aside  the  veil 
wherein  he  had  wrapped  the  sentiments.'  The  request  made  to 
him  in  the  very  next  verse,  give  us  a^csijs  this  bread,  shows, 
that  lie  was  not  yet  understood  as  speaki*g  of  a  person,  which 
he  must  have  been,  if  his  expression  had  been  as  explicit  as  that 
of  the  E.  T.  It  is  only  in  verse  35,  that  he  tells  them  plainly, 
that  he  is  himself  the  bread  of  w  hich  he  had  been  speaking.  In 
this  exposition,  I  agree  entirely  with  Dod.  Hey.  Wy.  and  Wor. 
and  some  of  our  best  commentators. 

39.  This  is  the  will  of  him  zcho  sent  me,  mro  tTi  ro  S-eXyjf^n  ra 
■jr£(tt.'v|/«vT(^  ((A£  7rxT§(^.  But  the  word  vecrpi^  is  wanting  in  the 
Al.  and  several  other  MSS.  It  is  not  found  in  the  Cop.  and  Ara. 
versions.  The  whole  verse  is  wanting  in  the  Go.  Several  of 
the  fathers  also  appear  not  to  have  read  the  word  TrxTpt^  in  this 
place  ;  it  is  Avanting  also  in  many  La.  MSS.  As  this  verse  is  ex. 
planatory  of  the  preceding,  whereof  a  part  is  repeated,  it  suits 
the  ordinary  method  of  composition  not  to  mention  ^rar^©-  in 
this  place,  as  it  does  not  occur  in  the  words  referred  to.  Mill, 
and  some  other  critics,  agree  in  rejecting  it. 

41.  1  am  the  bread  which  descended  from  heaven,  syu  «/x(  o 
etpr®^  0  K«T«oa£5  ex.  m  apxva,  Vul.  Ego  sum  panis  viviis  qui  de 
ccclo  dcscendi.  The  addition  of  vivus,  in  this  place,  has  no  sup- 
port from  r.ISS.  or  versions;  no,  not  even  the  Sax.  version. 

45.  Every  one  who  hath  heard  and  learnt  from  the  Father, 
cometh  unto  me,  ttcci;  av  o  ciy-mrxi  Tru^a  ra  Trarp©^  x^  y.x^u'i  i^y(;iTcti 
vrp^  f^B.  E.  T.  Evert/  man,  therefore,  that  hath  heard  and  hath 
learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  unto  me-     Markland  justlv  ob- 


432  NOTES  ON  ch.  vr, 

serves,  that,  as  the  preceding  words  are,  they  shall  be  all  taught 
of  God,  it  would  have  been  more  consequential  to  subjoin,  evert/ 
man,  therefore^  that  cometh  rinto  me,  hath  heard  and  learnt  of 
the  Father :  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  only  in  this  way 
that  the  affirmation  can  be  deduced,  as  a  consequence,  from  what 
preceded.  But,  in  some  MSS.  of  note,  the  illative  particle  «v  is 
not  found  ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  corresponding  to  it  in  the  Vul. 
Cop.  Go.  and  Sax.  versions.  Origen  also  omits  it.  Now,  the 
omission  of  (his  particle  corrects  entirely  the  incoherency.  In 
a  case  of  this  kind,  where  the  connection  is  plainly  injured  by 
the  particle,  the  reason  above  mentioned  is  ground  sufficient  for 
excluding  it ;  for  it  is  plain,  that  transcribers  have  used  more 
freedom  with  connexive  particles,  than  Avith  the  other  parts  of 
speech.  And  we  may  add,  that  those  of  this  class,  in  supplying 
such  helps,  commonly  do  not  consult  the  understanding  so  much 
as  the  ear. 

51.   /*  my  jlesh,ixhich  I  liiill  give  for  the  life  of  the  world, 

i}  o-cc^^  ,«.«  eriv  sj'v  eya>  ^wrroi  uTtie^  '"'J?  fH  y-oTfjLH  (^mk^.       Vul.  Curo  niea 

est  pro  rniindi  vita.  The  clause  jjv  tyo)  ^wto)  is  wanting  in  three 
noted  MSS.  and  in  the  Eth.  and  Sax.  versions,  as  well  as  in  the 
Vul. 

53.  Ye  have  not  life  in  you,  ax.  ix^f^  t,uiv>  £v  £<«6ro(5.  E.  T.  Ye 
have  no  life  in  you.  The  version  I  have  given,  is  closer,  both 
to  the  letter  and  to  the  sense.  The  life  spoken  of,  is  called,  both 
before  and  after,  (^cat)  Mmi<^.  The  adjective,  though  sometimes 
dropped,  is  always  understood,  whilst  the  subject  of  discourse 
continues  to  be  the  same.  The  import  of  our  Lord's  words  is, 
therefore,  not  that  there  was  no  living  principle  of  any  sort  in 
those  who  rejected  him  (though  the  expression,  in  the  common 
translation,  seems  to  imply  as  much),  but  that  they  had  nothing 
of  the  life,  about  which  he  had  been  discoursing  to  them. 

55.  For  myjlfsh  is  truly  meat,  and  my  blood  is  truly  drink^ 

few  MSS.  read  x.\t)3-m  in  both  places.  With  them  agvee  the  Cop. 
and  second  Sy.  versions.  The  literal  translation  of  this  reading 
is,  for  my  flesh  is  the  true  meat,  and  my  blood  is  the  true  drink. 
The  ditference  in  meaning  is  not  material,  and  if  it  were,  there  is 
not  sufficient  authority,  in  this  place,  for  an  alteration. 


CH.    VI. 


S.  JOHN.  433 


56.  The  Cam.  MS.  and  one  of  Stephens's,  after  xvTa>,aM,  y.ci~ 
B-ui  a  ifMi  0  TTocrri^i  ■x.kyw  ev  ru  ■srxrpi.  Af^y.v  «^-»jv  Asyiy  o^<v  eav  i/.iij 
Xci^rjTS    TO   c-ft)|M,«   T«  uiH  ray   oti^^aiTrav ^  coi   Tav  es^Tov  r-<$  ^a;)?,  ovk.  iX,eTS 

^cotiv  IV  oLvT/i),  yis  the  Father  is  in  mc,  and  I  am  in  the  Father. 
Verily^  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  unless  ye  receive  the  body  of  the 
son  of  man  as  the  bread  of  life,  ye  have  not  life  in  him.  That 
Dr.  Mill  should,  on  so  slight  authority,  even  by  his  own  account 
(Proleg.  1268,  &c.),  favour  an  addition  which,  as  Whitby  ob- 
serves (Exam.  Millii),  has  the  sanction  of  no  ecclesiastical  wri- 
ter,  no  translation,  no  commentary,  and  Is,  besides,  unsuitable 
to  the  style  of  the  context,  is  truly  amazing. 

57.  As  the  Father  livcth  xoho  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Fa- 
ther  ;  even  so,  he  zoho  feedeth  on  me,  shall  live  by  me — KccSai; 
«j3"£r«>i£  fte  0   ^uv  TTXTTif,  y-uya  C^u  oice,  tow  vxTiPct'  «^    o  TQuyav  f^s,  k.k- 
KMv(^  (^'/lo-erxi  (J'<'  £1^:.     E.  T.   As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me, 
and  I  live  by  the  Father;  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall 
live  by  me.    In  the  Oriental  tongues,  the  present  participle  sup- 
plies the  present  of  the  indicative.     We  have  an  example  of  it 
in  the  above  passage;  but  the  illustration  conveyed  in  that  man- 
ner is  more  clearly  expressed  in  modern   tongues,  when   ren- 
dered by  the  indicative.     I  have,  therefore,  taken  this  method 
here,  which  is  approved  by  Gro,  and  followed  by  Cas.  who  says, 
qaemadmodum  vivit  pater  qui  me  misit.    Maldonat  also  explains 
it  in  the  same  manner.    The  clauses,  ^cuiui  omz^eiXi  /ne  o  ^m  -tfcitti^, 
yAyu  ^u  ^M  Tflv  TTdTspcc,  make  not  a  complete  comparison,  but 
only,  what  I  may  call,  one  moiety  of  a  comparison,  whereof  what 
follows,  j^  0  r^uyuv  (jls,  kux,^v@^  ^jjs-eTctj  Si  e/^s,  makes  the  other. 
A  comparison  of  the  same  taste  we  have,  ch.  x.  14,  15.     It  must 
be  owned,  that  Six,  with  the  accusative,   commonly  marks  the 
final,  not  the  efficient,  cause,  answering  to  the  La.  propter,  not 
io  per.  But  it  is  confessed  on  all  sides,  that  this  does  not  always 
hold.     The  Vul.  indeed,  Er.  and  Zu.  render  it  propter  ;  Cas 
and  Be.  per.     But  even  the  expounders  of  the  Vul.  and  transla. 
tors  from  it,  consider  the  preposition  propter  here,  as  equivalent 
toper.     P.  R.  and  Sa.  render  it  in  Fr.  par,  not  pour.     Maldo- 
nat and  Si.  admit  that  propter  means  bere  the  same  as  per.     The 
whole  scope  of  the  context  is  so  manifestly  favourable  to  this 
interpretation,  and  adverse  to  the  other,  as  to  leave  no  reason- 
able doubt. 


434  NOTES  ON  ch.  vh. 

69.  The  son  of  the  living  God.,  i  o<®-  ts  Qea  m  ^«vt©-,  VuL 
Filius  Dei.  Ty  ^<yvT^  is  wanting  in  a  few  MSS.  The  same  de- 
fect is  found  in  the  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions,  as  in  the  Vul- 
Nonnus  also  omits  this  epithet. 

70.  A  spy.     Diss.  VI.  P.  I.  §  4,  5,  6. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

8.  I  go  not  yet y  tyu  uttm  MoJ^xivca.  Vul.  Ego  autem  non  as' 
cendo.  The  Cam.  and  another  MS.  read  6vk  for  ov7ra>.  The  Cop, 
Sax.  and  Eth.  versions  read  as  the  Vul. 

12,  Much  whispering,  yayyvi^f^®^  TroXvg.  E.  T.  Much  mur- 
7nuring.  The  word  murmuring  would,  in  this  place,  convey  the 
notion  of  discontent,  grumbling.  This  does  not  appear  to  be 
suggested  by  the  original  term.  It  expresses  solely  the  secrecy 
and  caution  vvhicli  the  people  found  it  convenient  to  use  m  speak- 
ing on  this  subject,  being  prompted,  not  by  their  resentments, 
but  by  their  fears,  Toyyvry.'^^  in  this,  stands  in  opposition  to 
TTx^^ijc-fci  in  the  next  verse, 

15.   Whence  comeththis  man's  learning?  zruc,  iiT<^  y^xf^/^X' 
rot,  oih  ;  An.  How  came  he  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures  ?  Some 
foreign  translators  also  render  the  words  in  the  same  manner.  It 
was  no  doubt  our  Lord's  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures,  and 
reasoning  from  them,  which  occasioned  the  remark.     Cut  there 
appears  no  reason  for  confining  the  word  y^a^it^arix  to  this  signi. 
fication.  Indeed,  the  expression,  ru.  hgu,  y^xfJLy.a,Ta,^  occurs,  2  Tim. 
iii.  15.  in  this  sense;  but  this  is  rather  an  argument  against  ren. 
dering  it  so  here,  Avhere  yfa,u.yMru.  has  neither  the  epithet  nor  the 
article  with  which  it  is  accompanied  in  that  place.     The  article, 
for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  invariably  attends  y^a£p>}  (which,  with, 
out  it,  means  no  more  than  a  writing),  when  it  denotes  the 
Scriptures.     We  cannot,  then,  think,  that  so  vague  a  term  as 
yf>xy.(/.xTx,  without  any  mark  of  distinction,  would  be  used  for 
the  same  purpose.     Further,  ypxn^xrct,  for  denoting  letters,  or 
learning  in  general,  occurs  elsewhere,  both  in  the  N.  T.  and  in 
the  ancient  version  of  the  Old.     See  Acts  xxvi.  24.  Is.  xxix.  11, 
12. ;  where  it  may  be  observed,  that  iTTf^xttxt  ypxf*.f^xrc6  Is  used 
in  a  way  entirely  similar  to  the  ypxiA.y.*Tx  cih  of  the  passage 
under  examination.     Add  to  this,  that,  if  our  Lord  had  under, 
stood  by  ypxfi.f<,xra,  the  Scriptures,  he  would  not  surely,  verse 


CH.  VII.  S.  JOHN.  435 

16th,  have  distinguished  the  doctrine  learnt  from  them,  from  the 
doctrine  taught  by  the  Father. 

17.  Whosoever  is  minded  to  do  his  will,  exv  t<;  3-eX-^  to  S-sXiii^it 
uvrov  TToieiv.  E.  T.  If  uny  man  will  do  his  zoill.  As  the  auxiliary 
tcill  is  often  no  more  than  a  sign  of  the  future,  it  expresses  but 
weakly  the  import  of  the  verb  ^eXt}.  To  say,  with  An.  and  Iley. 
is  inclined^  or,  with  Wor.  if  any  man  desire,  is  still  worse;  be- 
cause these  expressions  always  denote  a  disposition  of  mind 
Avhich  comes  short  of  a  purpose  or  resolution,  and  from  which 
we  can  hardly  promise  any  thing.  Dod.  says,  determined,  which 
is  very  good.  I  prefer,  with  Pearce,  the  word  minded.  Mt. 
xvi.  24.  N.  L.  xiii.  31.  N. 

18.  Is  a  stranger  to  deceit,  x^tKix  iv  uvtu  mt  er.v.  In  the  use 
of  the  Seventy,  uSikuv  often  denotes,  to  lie,  to  prevaricate,  to  de- 
ceive, and  x^Mu,,  falsehood,  deceit,  which  is  evidently  the  most 
apposite  meaning  in  this  place,  where  it  is  contrasted  to  aXr.^yfi. 
In  this  way.  Beau,  and  some  other  late  interpreters,  have  ren- 
dered the  word. 

21,  22.  /  have  performed  one  action  which  surprisclh  you  all. 
Moses  instituted  circurncision  amongst  you,  ev  e^yov  £ir<3«c-«4  s^ 
TTXvTei  S-xvf^ci(^£Te.  Atcc  tovto  MatTr.i  ^e^unev  vf^tv  rsjv  fr£pirof^y,v.  L.  1. 
I  have  do7ie  one  work,  and  ye  all  marvel.  Moses,  therefore, 
gave  unto  you  circumcision.  I  have,  with  The.  who  is  followed 
by  some  of  our  best  critics,  joined  Six  rovro  to  the  end  of  verse  21. 
Nothing  can  be  more  incongruously  connected  than  the  words 
are  in  the  Eng.  and  most  other  modern  translations  ;  where  our 
Lord's  performing  a  miracle  is  represented  as  the  cause  why 
Moses  gave  them  circumcision.  It  is  justly  observed  by  Be. 
(though  he  has  followed  a  dilferent  method  in  translating)  that 
if  Six  TauTo  be  construed  with  ^avfJcxl^iTe,  which  makes  an  altera- 
tion only  on  the  pointing,  we  have  an  example  of  the  same  con- 
struction and  arrangement  with  the  same  verb.  Mr.  vi.  G.  i6xv~ 
f.ux,(!^e  Six  tjjv  xTrirtxv  xvtuv  ;  he  zcondcrcd  at  their  unbelief.  Dif- 
ferent methods  have  been  adopted  by  translators,  which,  in  my 
judgment,  are  forced  and  unnatural.  The  method  here  followed, 
is  that  taken  by  Dod.  Wes.  Wy.  and  Wor. 

22.  Circumcise  on  the  Sabbath.  The  precept  of  circumci- 
Bion  required  that  every  male  child  should  be  rirrumri^ed  the 


436  NOTES  ON  ch.  v'ri, 

eighth  day  from  his  birth.  Gen.  xvii.  10,  &c.  Lev.  xii.  3. 
Though  the  eighth  day  happened  to  be  the  Sabbath,  this  ceremo- 
riy  was  not  deferred;  and  the  law  of  cirGumcision  vacated  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath. 

23.  Because  I  have^  on  the  sabbath^  cured  a  man  whose  whole 

body  zoas  disabled  ?   ori   iAav    uvB-puvov   vyiyj  tvotniFU^    iv    (rxQSxrta  ; 

E.  T.  Because  I  have  made  a  man  every  zohit  xzhole^  on  the  sab- 
bath daij  ?  Dod.  That  I  have  cured  a  man  entirely^  on  the  sab- 
bath ?  This  does  not  differ  in  meaning  from  the  E.  T.  which  with 
most  other  versions  denotes  only  the  completeness  of  the  cure- 
All  that  they  say,  might  have  been  said  with  propriety,  if  no 
more  than  a  finger  or  a  toe  had  been  affected.  Whereas  the 
words  oMv  uv3-^6>7rdv  hyirs  ttoihi  plainly  intimate  that  it  was  not  a 
single  member  only,  bnt  the  whole  body  that  was  cured.  Beau< 
seems  to  be  the  first  modern  interpreter  who  had  fully  expressed 
the  sense.  De  ce  qu'^un  jour  de  sabbat,  fai  gueri  un  homme 
qui  etoit  incommode  dans  tout  son  corps.  Our  Lord  doubtless 
alludes  to  the  cure  wrought  at  Bethesda,  on  the  man  who  had 
been  eight  and  thirty  years  in  distress.  I  have  changed  the  word 
diseased,  which  was  perhaps  too  strong,  for  disabled,  which  is 
more  conformable  to  what  we  learn  from  ch.  v.  5,  &c. 

24.  Judge  not  from  personal  regards,  /m./)  Kptvire  kxt'  oipiv.. 
E.  T.  Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance.  This  phrase  is 
ambiguous.  It  may  mean  either  the  external  circumstances  of 
the  case,  or  the  dignity  of  the  parties  concerned  ;  but  more  rea- 
dily conveys  to  our  thoughts  the  former,  than  the  latter  of  these 
significations.  Whereas  ei/-*?  answers  to  the  La.  fades,  and  is 
equivalent  to  Tr^otruTrov,  face,  or  person.  It  occurs  only  in  two 
other  places  of  the  N.  T.  ch.  xi.  44.  and  Rev.  i.  16.  In  the  one 
it  is  rendered /«ce;  in  the  other,  countenance.  It  is  often  found 
in  the  Sep.  in  the  same  acceptation.  There  can  be  no  question 
that  this  precept  is  of  the  same  import  with  those  which  enjoin 
strict  impartiality  between  the  parties,  or  to  have  no  respect  of 
persons  in  judgment.  The  application  of  the  precept  is  pretty 
obvious  from  the  occasion  of  it.  If  they  had  been  strictly  im. 
partial  and  equitable,  they  would  have  seen  that  they  could  not 
vindicate  Moses  for  enjoining  such  a  violation  of  the  Sabbatical 
rest  as  was  occasioned  by  circumcising,  whilst  they  condemned 
Jesus  for  his  miraculous  cures,  which  required  less  labour,  and 


OH.  vii.  S.  JOHN.  437 

were  not  less  evidently  calcolfi+ed  for  promoting  a  good  end. 
Nay,  they  could  not  excuse  themselves  for  the  one  practice,  if 
Jesus  was  blameable  for  the  other. 

26.  That  this  is  the  Messiah^  on  n'r'^  srtv  aX'/j^ui  o  X|«r©^.  E. 
T.  That  this  is  the  veri)  Christ,  The  v\ord  «Ai5^&»5  is  wanting  in 
many  MSS.  ;  amongst  which  are  the  Cam  and  others  of  note. 
It  is  not  in  the  Com.  and  some  other  early  editions  ;  nor  has  it 
been  read  by  some  of  the  primitive  v^riters.  There  is  no  word 
answering  to  it  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  and  Ara.  versions. 
The  Sy.  and  the  Eth.  have  each  a  word  corresponding  to  it ;  but 
as  they  have  none  answering  to  tlie  word  ciM^oic,,^  in  the  former 
part  of  the  verse  (for  the  authenticity  of  which  there  is  so  gene- 
ral a  consent  of  MSS.  fathers,  and  versions),  there  is  some  ground 
to  suspect  a  transposition.  On  the  whole,  considering  also  that 
the  word  is  unnecessary,  and,  in  this  place,  rather  unsuitable  to 
the  ordinary  style  of  the  writer,  1  thought  it  better  to  omit  it. 

28.  Do  ye  knoio  both  zcho  aiid  whence  I  am  ?  Kotf^e  oi^are,  i^ 
n^xTs  7ro6iv  «M,(.  Vj.  T.  le  both  know  me,  and  ye  knozs  whence 
I  am.  As  the  words  are  plainly  capable  of  being  read  as  an  in- 
terrogation, it  is,  in  every  respect,  most  elligible  to  translate 
them  so  in  this  place.  In  the  way  they  are  commonly  rendered, 
they  contain  a  direct  contradiction  to  what  our  Lord  says,  ch. 
■viii.  14.  19.  Nor  does  it  satisfy,  that  both  may  be  true  in  dif. 
ferent  senses,  since  these  different  senses  do  not  appear  from  the 
context.  Nay,  in  effect,  he  contradicts  them  in  the  same  breath  ; 
inasmuch  as  he  tells  the  people,  that  they  know  not  him  who 
sent  him.  When  they  said.  We  know  zchcncc  this  man  is,  the 
same  thing  was  evidently  meant  as  when  they  said,  cli.  vi.  42.  Is 
not  this  Jes'is  the  son  of  J oscph,,  whose  father  and  mother  zee 
know?  Now,  our  Lord  tells  them  plainly,  that  they  do  not 
know  his  father,  and,  consequently,  cannot  tell  whence  (that  is, 
of  what  parentage)  he  is.  Dod.  Wes.  Wy.  render  the  words 
here  interrogatively. 

^  He  is  true  zi^ho  sent  me,  e?-iv  aXy,9iv(^  o  7r£f^4'^<i  t^^--  There  is 
generally  observed  in  the  N.  T.  a  distinction  between  at?^&y,(i  and 
«Ajj^(v(^,  when  applied  to  persons;  the  former  answers  to  the  La. 
verax,  the  latter  to  veriis ;  the  one  means  ol)servant  of  truth, 
the  other  genuine.  The  words,  therefore,  are  thought  by  Gro. 
voL.   IV.  55 


438  NOTES  ON  ch.  vii. 

tius,  not  improbably,  to  suggest  that  the  genuine  father  of  Jesus, 
a?\3j6iv^  etvTH  TTXTii^^  was  he  who  sent  him  ;  tlie  other,  whom  they 
knew  was  only  vof^n^of^evtS^',  supposed  to  be  his  father.  Others 
think,  that  as  th-  true  God,  in  contradistinction  to  the  false  Gods 
of  the  nations,  is  sometimes,  in  the  sacred  books,  called  o  «A>j- 
6tv^  ©£05,  the  epithet asA);C(v:^  is  here  employed  to  hint,  to  the  at- 
tentive and  intelligent  hearers,  that  that  Almighty  Being,  who 
alone  is  eminently  denominated  TRUE,  is  he  who  sent  him.  In 
either  case,  it  does  not  appear  to  have  I)oen  our  Saviour's  inten- 
tion to  express  himself  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  equally  intelli- 
gible to  all.  Ilis  own  disciples  he  brought,  by  little  and  little, 
to  the  full  knowledge  of  his  doctrine.  The  spiritual,  like  the 
natural,  day  advances  gradually.  Now  the  translator  ought,  as 
much  as  he  can,  to  adopt  the  views  of  his  author. 

32.  The  chief  priests,  oi  «f;;j/ff«s.  Vgl.  Principes.  In  con- 
formity to  this  version,  two  MSS.  of  little  account,  read  et^^ovrei. 
The  Sax.  version  follows  the  Vul. 

33.  Jesns,  therefore,  said,  httev  av  avroic,  !>  itju-a^.  E.  T.  Then 
said  Jesus  unto  then?.  So  great  a  number  of  MSS.  editions,  ver. 
sions,  fathers,  and  critics,  reject  uvrtu;  in  this  [)lace,  as  leave  no 
reasonable  ground  to  think,  that  it  has  originaly  belonged  to  it. 
When  we  consider  also  the  scope  of  the  passage,  we  find  it  would 
be  improper  ;  for  this  discourse  must  certainly  have  been  direct- 
ed, not  to  the  olTicers  of  the  Pharisees,  but  to  the  people. 

35.  IVill  he  go  to  the  dispersed  Greeks?  f^i  e^?  t;;v  hct'i-Tro^xv 
Tuv  'EAAjjVijyv  (^tX>^H  ^a^ivenS-xi '.  Vul.  Nuniquid  in  dispersionem 
Gentium  iturus  est?  Be.  Nhm  ad  cos  qui  disper  si  sunt  inter 
Grcecos  profecturus  est?  After  him  E.  T.  JVill  he  go  unto  the 
dispersed  among  the  Gentiles  ?  It  is  a  manifest  stretch  to  ren- 
der the  dispersion  of  the  Greeks,  those  dispersed  among  the 
Greeks  ;  but  if  this  were  allowable,  the  ^ery  next  clause,  and 
teach  the  Greeks  ?  excludes  it^  for  it  is  to  them  surely  he  goes 
whom  he  intends  to  teach.  That  'EMjjvt;  is  ever  used  in  the  N. 
T.  for  Hellenist  Jews,  I  have  seen  no  evidence,  and  am  therefore 
now  satisfied  that  this  is  the  only  version  which  the  words  will 
bear. 

38.  He  who  believeth  on  me,  as  Scripture  saith,  shall  prove 
a  cistern  zfhence  rivers  of  living  water  shall  flow,  o  Tn^evm  «? 


CH.  VI t. 


S,  JOHN.  439 


^mr^.  E.  T.  Hcihatbelieveih  on  me,  us  the  Scripture  haih  said, 
out  of  his  belljj  shall JioxD  rivers  of  living  u-ater.  As  commenta. 
tors  have  been  at  a  loss  to  find  the  portion  of  Scripture  here  refer- 
red  to,  some  have  joined  KccScoi  n^ev  »  y^xtp^,  to  the  clause  i  Trt^ivm 
«5  ,,tt5,  which  immediately  precedes,  and  thus  rendered  the  words, 
He  zcho  believeth  on  me  so  as  the  Scripture  hath  commanded, 
making  the  latter  clause  serve  to  qualify  the  former,  that  it  may 
be  understood  that  not  every  sort  of  believer  is  meant,  but  he 
whose  belief  is  of  such  a  particular  kind.     For  my  part,  I  do 
not  find  any  insinuation  in  Scripture,  that  there  are,  or  can  be, 
different  ways  of  believing.      Belief  may  indeed  have  very  difle. 
rent  objects.     But  as  to  the  act  of  the  mind  called  believing,  it 
is  always  mentioned  in  holy  writ  with  the  same  simplicity  that 
seeing,  hearing,  understanding,  and  remembering,  are  mentioned. 
Nor  does  there  appear  the  least  suspicion  in  the  writer,  that  any 
one  of  these  should  be  misunderstood  by  the  reader  more  than  any 
other.     The  above  mentioned  is  one  of  those  criticisms  which 
spring  entirely  from  controversial  theology:   for,   if  there  had 
not  been  previously  different  definitions  of  faith  adopted  by  dif- 
ferent parties  of  Christians,  such  a  manner  of  interpreting  the 
words  had  never  been  devised.     Doubtless,  therefore,  y,*6coi  H^n, 
^  y^cc^y,,  is  to  be  explained  in  the  usual  way,  as  referring  to  some 
scriptural  promise  or  prediction,  of  which  what  is  here  told 
would  prove  the  accomplishment.     Iloubigant  thinks  that  the 
passage  alluded  to  is  in  one  of  Balaam's  prophecies.  Num.  xxiv 
7.  which  he  translates  in  this  manner:  De  prcecordiis  ejus  aqucE 
manubunt.  He  says  some  plausible  things  in  support  of  his  opi- 
nion, which  it  would  be  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  examine  here. 
1  have  had  occasion  formerly  to  observe,  that  by  such  phrases  as 
Kx&coi  «^£v  ^  yictt^y,,  a  particular  passage  of  Scripture  is  not  always 
referred  to,  but  the  scope  of  dillerent  passages  is  given. 

39.  The  spirit  was  not  yet  \_given'],  vttu  yap  jjv  ttv^via^x  xytov.  E. 
T.  For  the  Hull/  Ghost  teas  not  yet  given.  Vul.  Nondum  enim 
end  spiritus  datus.  'Aytoy  is  wanting  in  several  MSS.  Origen, 
Cyril,  Hesychius,  and  Nonnus,  seem  not  to  have  read  it.  There 
is'nothing  corresponding  to  it  in  the  Vul.Sy.  Cop.  Sax.  and  Arm; 
versions.  It  is  rejected  also  by  some  of  the  best  modern  critics. 
Though  there  is  no  word  for  given  in  the  common  Gr.  it  is  in  the 


440  NOTES  ON  ch.  f  ii. 

Vat.  MS.  tlie  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  and  the  Sax.  It  seems  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  complete  the  sense.  The  evidence  in  its  favour 
would  otherwise  be  insufficient. 

43.  The  people  were  divided,  T^iT-f^ic.  ev  T6>  ox,>^6)  eyeveTo.  Di&s. 
X.  P.  III.  §  2. 

48.  Of  the  Pharisees.     Diss.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

52.  Search.,  Bpevvno-av.  Yu\.  Scrutari  Scripturas,  The  only 
voucher  for  this  variation  is  the  Cam.  MS.  which  adds  tx<;  y^a- 
(p.'.ii.     No  version  whatever  favours  it. 

^  TJiat  prophets  arise  not  oitt  of  Galilee.,  on  7rpo^r,r-/,i  £jc  tjj;  Tx- 
XiXottxi  HK  lyiiye^Toti.      E.  T.   For  out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no  pro- 
phet.    A  great  number  of  M'^S.    read  syc-i^tTon.,  and  several  ver- 
sions, the  Vul.  both  the  Sy.  the  Goth,  and  the  Sajc.  render  the 
words  iu  such  a  manner  as  though  thoy  had  read  so.      Nonnus 
also  says   lyeiQircn.      But  we  cannot,  from   this,  conclude  with 
certainty  that  they  read  so  :  for  a  freedom  no  greater  than  the 
change  of  the  tense  in  verbs,  must  be  sometimes  taken,  especially 
in  translating  a  writer  who  uses  the  tenses  with  such  peculiarity 
of  idiom  as  this  Evangelist.     It  is  enough  here,  that  it  appears 
to  have  been  the  general  sense  of  interpreters,  that  the  verb  was 
to  be  understood  in  the  present.     Indeed,  most  of  the  modern 
translators,  and  among  the  rest  the  Eng.  have  in  this  followed 
the  ancient.     It  has  not  a  little   puzzled  expositors  to  account 
for  so  general  an  assertion  from  the  leading  men  of  the  nation, 
since  it  is  highly  probable  that  Jonah  at  least  arose  out  of  Gali- 
lee.    On  this  article  I  observe,  first,  that  our  translators  have 
rendered  the  expression  more  absolute  than  they  were  warranted 
by  the  Gr.     It  is  there  literally,  A  prophet  ariseth  not.     They 
say,  No  prophet  ariseth.     There  is  a  real  dilference  here.     The 
former,  in  common  speech,  denotes  no  more  than  that  it  is  not 
usual  ;  the  latter,  (hat  it  never  happens.     I  have  rendered  it,  in 
my  opinion,  more  agreeably  to  the  sense,  and  more  suitably  to 
our  idiom  by  the   plural   number.     I  observe,  2dly,  That  men, 
when  their  passions  are  inGamed,  are  not  wont  to  be  accurate  in 
their   expressions,  or  distinct  iu   recollecting,  on  the   sudden, 
things  which  make  against  them.     This  expression  of  the  Phari- 
sees, therefore,  whom  prejudice,  pride,  and  envy  concurred  in 
blinding,  needs  not  appear  so  surprising  to  us.     The  expedient, 
to  which  Bishop  Pearce  and  others  have  recurred,  of  prefixing 


CH.   Tiir. 


S.  JOHN.  441 


the  article  to  7ro5^»T57;,  without  the  authority  of  a  single  MS.  or 
of  a  quotation  from  any  ancient  autiior,  is,  of  all  resources,  the 
worst.  Here  it  would  hurt,  insiead  of  mending,  the  reply. 
Admit  that  Jesus  had  been  but  a  prophet,  and  not  the  Messiah, 
was  there  no  crime,  or  was  there  no  danger,  in  forming  a  plan  to 
destroy  him?  By  such  a  correction  one  would  make  them  speak, 
as  if  it  were  their  opinion,  that  they  might  safely  take  the  life  of 
an  innocent  man,  even  though  a  prophet  of  God,  if  he  was  not 
the  Messiah.  The  reason  of  t!ieir  mentioning  a  prophet  was,  be- 
cause our  Lord,  by  pretending  a  divine  commission,  had  classed 
himself  among  prophets,  and  therefore  had  given  reason  to  infer 
that,  if  he  was  not  a  prophet,  he  was  an  impostor,  and,  conse- 
quently, merited  the  fate  they  intended  for  him.  For  the  law, 
Deut.  xviii.  20.  had  expressly  declared,  that  the  prophet  who 
should  presume  to  speak  a  word  in  the  name  of  God,  which  he 
had  not  commanded  him  to  speak,  should  die.  Now,  they  had, 
on  their  hypothesis,  specious  ground  for  making  the  remark,  as 
it  served  to  vindicate  their  designs  against  his  life.  But  the 
whole  of  their  argument  is  marred  by  making  it  the  prophet ;  for 
our  Lord  was  not  yet  understood  to  have  publicly  and  explicitly 
declared  himself  the  Messiah. 

53.  [Then  everj/  man  ~oc)2t, — See  the  note  immediately  fol- 
lowing. 


CHAPTKR  VII r. 

1 — ll-l  The  first  eleven  verses  of  this,  with  the  concluding 
verse  of  the  former  chapter,  containing  the  story  of  the  adulte- 
ress, are  wanting  in  a  great  number  of  MSS.  Origin,  Chr.  Tiie. 
the  Gr.  catena,  though  containing  no  fewer  than  three  and  twen- 
ty authors,  have  not  read  these  twelve  verses.  Euth.  a  commen- 
tator, so  late  as  the  twelfth  century,  is  the  first  who  has  explain- 
ed them.  At  the  same  time  he  assures  us,  in  his  commentary, 
they  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  most  correct  copies.  They  were 
not  in  any  good  copy  of  either  of  the  Sy.  versions,  printed  or 
MS.  till  they  were  printed  in  the  Eng.  Polyglot,  from  a  MS.  of 
Aschbishop  LTsher.  They  are  neither  in  the  Go.  nor  in  the  Cop. 
They  have  been  long  read  bv  the  Greeks  in  their  churches,  nte  in 


442  NOTES  ON  cH.  vih. 

most  of  the  MSS.  found  with  them  at  present ;  although  in  some 
of  them  they  are  marked  with  asterisks  or  daggers,  to  show  that 
they  are  considered  as  spurious.  If  they  be  an  interpolation, 
they  are  a  very  ancient  one,  having  been  found  in  some  copies 
before  Origen.  Some  have  represented  them  as  having  been  trans- 
cribed from  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  ; 
others  have  ascribed  them  to  Papias,  who  flourished  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  century.  Many  of  the  best  critics  and  ex- 
positors of  opposite  sects  have  entertained  strong  suspicions  of 
them.  Such  are  Er.  Olivetan,  Cajetan,  Bucer,  Cal.  Be.  Gro. 
Ham.  L.  Cl.  The  words  of  Be.  are  remarkable  ;  I  shall,  there- 
fore, transcribe  them.  '••  Ad  me  quidem  quod  attinet,  non  dissi- 
*'  mulo  mihi  merito  suspectum  esse  quod  veteres  illi  tanto  con- 
"  sensu  vel  rejecerunt,  vel  ignorarunt.  Deinde  quod  narrat  Je- 
"  sum  solum  fuisse  relictum  cum  muliere  in  templo,  nescio  quam 
"  sit  probabile:  nee  satis  cohaeret  cum  eo  quod  mox,  id  est, 
"  versu  duodecimo,  dicitur,  eos  rursum  alloquutus;  et  quod 
"  scribit,  Jesum  digito  scripsisse  in  terra,  novum  mihi  et  iuso- 
"  lens  videtur,  nee  possum  conjicere  quomodo  pcssit  satis  com- 
"  mode  explicari.  Tanta  denique  lectionis  varietas  facit  ut  de 
"  totius  istius  narrationis  fide  dubitem."  To  the  expositors 
above  mentioned,  I  might  almost  add  the  Jesuit  Maldonat  con- 
sidered in  his  critical  capacity,  though,  as  a  true  son  of  the 
church,  he  declares  himself  on  the  contrary  side.  For,  after 
fairly  deducing  the  evidences,  which  are  urged  for  the  rejection 
of  this  story,  he  produces,  as  a  counterbalance,  the  single  autho- 
rity of  the  council  of  Trent,  and  appears  to  make  a  merit  of 
sacrificing  to  it  every  thing  that  might  be  urged  from  reason  on 
the  opposite  side.  ""  Sed  hsc  omnia,"  meaning  the  evidences  he 
had  given  of  the  spuriousness  of  the  passage,  "  minus  habent 
"  ponderis,  quam  una  auctoritas  ecclesiaj,  quaj  per  concilium 
"  Tridentinum,  non  solum  libros  omnes  quos  nunc  habet  in  usu, 
"  sed  singulas  eiiam  ejus  partes,  tanqoam  canonicas  approbavit." 
But  in  this  implicit  deference  to  authority,  Maldonat  has  not 
preserved  an  uniform  consistency.  See  the  note  on  ch.  xxi.  22, 
23.  There  are  some  strong  internal  presumptions,  as  well  as 
external,  against  the  authenticity  of  the  passage.  They  who  de- 
sire to  enter  farther  into  the  question,  may  consult  Si's  Crit. 
Hist,  of  the  Text  of  the  N.  T.  ch.  xiii.  and  Wet.  on  the  place. 
Let  them  also  read,  for  the  sake  of  impartiality.  Bishop  Pearce's 


CH.  VII r.  S.  JOHN.  443 

note  C,  on  verse  11,  and  his  other  notes  and  remarks  on  the 
whole  story  ;  and  if  they  think  with  him,  that  all,  or  the  chief 
objections  made  by  Wet.  against  the  authenticity  of  the  story  are 
fully  answered,  they  will  naturally  adopt  the  Bishop's  opinion. 

6.  fVas  zcriting  icilh  his  Jinger  on  the  ground,  rut  SxKrvXa 
fy^*<?cv  eii  rr,v  yjjv.  E.  T.  With  his  finger  zerote  upon  the  ground^ 
as  though  he  heard  them  not.  This  is  one  of  the  few  instances 
in  which  our  translators  have  deserted  the  common  Gr.  and  even 
the  La.  in  deference  to  the  authority  of  MSS,  a  good  number  of 
•which,  and  some  of  the  early  editions,  after  y^v  read  (*.yi  Tr^oovrom- 
^?vo? ;  but  this  clause  is  not  in  any  translation,  that  I  have  seen, 
of  an  earlier  date  than  Dio.'s.  Being,  besides,  quite  unnecessa. 
ry,  I  thought  it  better  to  follow  the  common  editions  both  Gr. 
and  La. 

9.  Thei/  hearing  that  withdrew^  at  Ss,  aKHTx^iTK;  x.xi  otto  r??  a-v. 
vei^jjr  «;  fA£y;^«M,fi/3(,  e|^(C%ovTa.  E.  T.  And  they  which  heard  it^ 
being  convicted  hy  their  ozcn  conscience,  zoent  out.  The  clause 
Ttcti  iiTTt  Tr,<;  irvvrSTjTsiui  iXiyy^ofj-imt  is  wanting  in  many  MSS.  some 
of  the  best  editions,  and  in  the  Vul.  Sy.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions. 

10.  And  seeing  none  but  the  zcoman,  y.ott  f^r,h)>ot  ^exo-xf^evo^  9rA>;» 
TJJ5  yvvaco?.  Thi^  clause  is  wanting  in  the  Cam.  and  four  other 
MSS.  and  also  in  the  Vul  Sy.  Sax.  Cop.  and  Arm.  versions. 
The  sense,  however,  seems  to  require  it. 

^  llath  nobody  pass,  d  sentence  on  thee  ?  yhii  a-e  KXTeKjiiycv ; 
E.  T.  Ilaih  no  man  condemned  thee  ? 

11.  Neither  do  I  pass  sentence  on  thee^  ah  syu  in  Kxrccn^ivtv, 
E.  T.  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee.  The  Eng.  word  condemn  is 
used  with  so  great  latitude  of  signification  for  blaming,  disap. 
proving,  as  well  as  passing  sentence  against ;  that  I  thought  it 
better,  in  order  to  avoid  occasion  of  mistaking,  to  use  a  peri- 
phrasis which  exactly  hits  the  meaning  of  the  Gr.  word  in  these 
two  verses. 

14.  My  testimony  ought  to  be  regarded,  because  I  know 
zshence  I  came,  and  zehiiher  I  go,  AXjjtui  er<v  s/  /^.xprvpix  y-a'  on 
»t^x  TTflS-ev  tjxB-ev,  )^  9r«  uTTxya.  It  has  been  suggested  (Bowyer's 
Conjectures)  that  the  conjunction  art  is  not,  in  this  passage, 
causal,  but  explanatory,  and  introduces  the  testimony  meant, 
My  record  is  true.,  that  I  knozo  zrhence  I  came.,  and  uhither  I  am 


444  NOTES  ON  ch.  vim 

going.     But  though   on  is  often  employed  for  iisliering  in  the 
subject,   it  does  not  suit  the  connection  to  reii(der  it  so  here. 
Had  these  words,  I  know  zchence  I  am.,  SjC.  been  the  testiraon}^ 
to  which  the  Pharisees  alluded  in  tlie  preceding  verse,  where  they 
said,  Thou  test/fast  concerning  tlij/self,  &c.    I  should  admit  the 
justness  of  the  suggestion.     But  when  we  observe,  that  the  tes- 
timony, V.  12.  /  a/n  the  light  of  the  icorld.,  &c.  which  occasion- 
ed their  retort,  is  quite  diiiereiit;    we  must  be  sensible,  that  to 
render  the  words  in  the  way  suggested,  is  to  make  our  Lord's 
answer  foreign  from  the  purpose,   it  does  the  worse  here,  as  this 
appears  to  be  the  first  time  that  Jesus  used  these  words,  I  knoio 
whence  I  came,  8iC.     If  so,  they  could  not  be  the  testimony  to 
which  the  Pharisees  alluded.    How,  then,  does  our  Lord's  argu- 
ment   run,   on   the    common    interpretation  ?    In   this    manner, 
'  Though  it  holds  in  general,  that  a  man's  testimony  of  himself, 
'  unsu|>ported  by  other  evidence,  is  not  to  he  regarded;   it  is, 
'  nevertheless,  where  other  testimony  cannot  be  had,  always  rc- 
'  ceived,  and  has  that  regard  which  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
'  appear  to  entitle  it.     My  mission  is  a  transaction  between  God 
'  and  myself,      I  know  whence  I  came,  and  wliither  I  go:  or  all 
'  that  relates  to  the  nature  and  end  of  my  mission,  of  which  I  am 
'  conscious.     But  this  is  what  no  other  man  is:  I  can,  therefore. 
'  produce  no  human  testimony  but  my  own,  a  testimony  which 
'  will  not  be  disregarded  by  those  who  consider  how  strongly  it 
'  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  God.'     (See  v.   16,  17,  18.) 

15.  Ve  judge  from  passion,  1/A.ui  x-xra  7-;;v  trx^ico!,  x^ivirs.  E. 
T.  Ye  judge  after  the  Jiesh.  S«^|,  in  the  language  of  the  N.  T. 
is  frequently  used  to  denote  the  inferior  powers  of  the  soul,  the 
passions  aful  appetites,  and  is,  in  this  meaning,  opposed  to  Trviv- 
l^u,  which  denotes  the  superior  faculties  of  reason  and  conscience. 
Thus,  y.ccrx  <rai.By.%  ^re^/TTasrsiv,  is  to  act  habitually  under  the  influ- 
ence 6f  passion  and  appetite.  Tiiough,  from  the  use  of  the  com- 
mon version,  we  are  habituated  to  the  phrase  a]'ter  the  flesh,  to 
the  much  greater  number  it  conveys  no  distinct  meaning.  It 
only  suggests  something  which,  in  general,  is  bad.  Diss.  I.  P.I. 
§  11.  N .  §  14.  N. 

20.   The  treasury,  Mr.  xii.  41.  N. 

24.   Ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  j  that  is,  impenitent,  hardened. 
It  may  also  denote,  that  they  should  die  suftering  the  punishment 


<;h.  virr.  S.  JOHN.  446 

of  their  sins.  lu  this  explanation  it  conveys  a  prediction  of  the 
destruction  of  their  city  and  state,  in  which  it  is  not  improbable 
that  some  of  our  Lord's  hearers  on  this  occasion,  afterwards 
perished. 

25.  The  same  that  I  told  you  formerly  ^  rtiv  x^x^v  o,  n  kxi  Xx- 
Xu  ui^ii.  The  E.  T.  is  to  the  same  purpose.  Even  the  same  that 
I  said  unto  you  from  the  beginning  :  r^v  «p%)jv  for  y.ot,rx  rr,v  cc^^viv^ 
is  entirely  in  the  Gr.  idiom,  for  in  the  beginning^  formerly.  In 
this  way  it  is  used  by  the  Seventy,  Gen.  xiii,  4.  xliii.  18.  20. 
Dan.  viii.  1.  In  this  way  it  is  explained  by  Nonnus. 
O    Tt  Tre^  ufA.fn 

In  this  way  also  it  is  rendered  in  the  M.  G.  xtto  t«v  xp^ci-y-  Whea 
we  have  such  authority  for  the  meaning  of  the  word  (the  best  of 
all  authorities  for  scriptural  use),  I  see  no  occasion  for  recourse 
to  profane  authors.  Misled  by  these,  Dod.  unites  the  passage 
with  the  following  words,  v.  26.  ttoXXx  e^''^  TCi^i  iifM»t  XxXia  kxi 
xpivetv,  into  one  sentence,  thus  rendering  the  whole.  Truly,  be- 
cause I  am  speaking  to  you,  I  have  many  things  to  say  and 
judge  concerning  you,  in  which  it  is  not  in  my  power  to  discover 
any  meaning  or  coherence.  First,  we  have  no  answer  given  to 
the  question  put;  2dly,  we  have  things  introduced  as  cause  and 
effect,  which  seem  but  ill-fitted  to  stand  together  in  that  relation. 
Could  his  speaking  to  them  be  the  cause  of  his  having  many 
things  to  judge  concerning  them?  Vul.  Principium  qui  et  lo~ 
quor  vobis.  For  the  qui  there  has  no  support  from  either  Gr. 
MSS.  or  ancient  versions.  Nay,  some  ancient  Lat.  MSS.  read 
quod. 

27.  That  he  meant  the  Father,  on  rev  Trccrspx  xvtoic,  tXiya.  Yul. 
Quiapatrem  ejus  dicebat  Deum.  The  Cam.  MS.  adds,  ran  ©f«v, 
which,  with  the  Sax.  version,  seem  to  be  in  this  place  the  only 
testimonies  in  favour  of  the  Vul. 

28.  Then  ye  shall  know  zchdt  I  am,  rorc  ymTea-B-e  aTt  lya  ei/^t. 
E.  T.  Then  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  he.  With  Gro.  I  under- 
stand the  third  word  as  thus  divided,  o  n,  which  is  the  same  as 
ri,  quid,  what.  In  this  way  there  is  a  direct  reference  to  the 
question  put,  verse  2.5,  Who  art  thou?  It  has  this  advantage  also, 
that  it  leaves  no  ellipsis  to  be  supplied  for  completing  the  sense; 
and  the  connection  is  both  closer  and  clearer  than  in  the  common 

VOL.  IV  'ifi 


446  NOTES  ON  ch.  vin, 

version.  L.  Cl.  has  taken  this  method  in  rendering  the  words 
into  Fr.  Aloi's  vous  connoitrez  ce  que  je  siiis.  P.  R.  and  Sa. 
though  translating  from  the  Vul.  which  says,  quia  ego  sum,  go 
still  nearer  the  terms  of  the  question,  and  say,  qui  je  suis,  who 
I  am.  In  Eng.  the  An.  and  Hey.  follow  L.  Cl.  as  I  also  have 
done.  In  this  way  the  full  import  of  the  words  is  given  with 
sufficient  clearness. 

33.  Some  made  anszocr,  uTrex-oiSviTm  xvru.  E.  T.  They  anszcer- 
cd  him.  The  whole  scope  of  the  place  shows,  that  it  was  not 
those  believers  to  whom  Jesus  had  addressed  himself  in  the  two 
preceding  verses,  who  are  here  represented  as  answering.  But 
such  expressions  as  e?iiyov,  x7reK^ie>;<r»v^  are  sometimes  used  indefi. 
nitely,  and  import  only  it  was  said,  it  Teas  answered.  What  fol- 
lows evinces  that  they  were  far  from  being  believers  who  made 
this  answer. 

38.  Ye  do  what  ye  have  learnt  from  your  father,  vfieii  av  o 
iu^uKXTc  'x-ct^x  Tw  TeiTpt  'ufM)v  TTotiiTe.  E.  T.  Yc  do  that  zchich  ye 
have  seen  with  your  father.  But  in  a  considerable  number  of 
MSS.  some  of  them  of  note,  for  eupxKotre,  we  read  hkhtxti.  It 
was  so  read  by  Origen  and  Cyril.  It  is  followed  by  the  Eth, 
Cop.  Go.  and  second  Sy.  versions.  I  agree  with  Bishop  Pearce 
in  thinking  this  reading  preferable  in  point  of  propriety.  It  is 
for  this  reason,  which  is  of  the  nature  of  internal  evidence,  that  I 
have  adopted  the  correction,  otherwise  not  strongly  supported. 

^  If  ye  zoere  Abraham'' s  children,  ye  would  act  as  Abraham 
acted,  ei  TCKVX  m  A/ipxxfi.  »}Te,  rx  epyx  m  Aji^xxf^  iTroiein  xi.  Vul. 
Si  Jilii  Abrahce  estis,  opera  Abrahce  facite.  To  warrant  this 
version  the  original  should  be  A^pxx/^  tri,  tx  efy«  ra  A^^ecxu. 
Teieirs.   Yet  there  is  no  MS.  which  reads  entirely  in  this  manner. 

43.  It  is  because  ye  cannot  bear  my  doctrine,  art  a'  ^wxtS-s 
xkH£(v  Myov  Tflv  ii^ov,  E.  T.  Even  because  ye  cannot  hear  my  word. 
The  verb  xy-auv  denotes  frequently  in  Scripture,  and  even  in  pro- 
fane authors,  not  barely  to  hear,  but  ^o  hear  patiently ;  conse- 
quently not  to  hear  often  means  not  to  bear.  The  Eng.  verb,  to 
hear,  has  sometimes,  I  acknowledge,  the  same  meaning,  but  more 
rarely:  and  in  consequence  of  the  uncommonness,  the  literal 
version  has  somewhat  of  an  ambiguous  appearance  which  the 
original  has  not.  The  An.  Hey.  and  Wor.  have  all  avoided  th«^ 
ambiguity,  though  not  quite  in  the  same  manner. 


cii.  VIII.  S.  JOHN.  447 

44.  He  teas  a  manslayer^  cx-moi  utB-^aTroKTovai;  tiv.  E.  T.  He 
was  a  murdei'er.  The  common  term  for  murderer  in  the  N.  T. 
is  cpavsvi.  I  have  here  made  choice  of  a  less  usual  name,  not  from 
any  disposition  to  trace  etymologies,  but  because  I  think  it  is 
not  without  intention,  that  the  devil,  a  being  not  of  earthly  ex- 
traction, is  rather  called  uvGpo'^oKTovoi  than  (povivi,  as  marking, 
■with  greater  precision,  his  ancient  enmity  to  the  human  race. 
When  the  name  murderer  is  applied  to  a  rational  being  of  a  spe. 
cies  different  from  ours,  it  naturally  suggests  that  the  being  so 
denominated  is  a  destroyer  of  others  of  his  own  species.  As  this 
is  not  meant  here,  tlie  Evangelist's  term  is  peculiarly  apposite. 
At  the  same  time  I  am  sensible,  that  our  word  manslaughter 
means,  in  the  language  of  the  law,  such  killing  as  is  indeed  cri- 
minal, though  not  so  atrocious  as  murder.  But  in  common  use 
it  is  not  so  limited.  Hey.  says,  to  the  same  purpose,  a  slayer' 
of  7nen. 

45.  Because  I  speak  the  truths  ye  do  not  believe  »?e,  on  rtj* 
eiXijSetoiv  Xsyu^  y  TTi^-iveTs  jnn,  Vul.  Si  veritutern  dico  non  credi- 
iis  mihi.  This  version,  one  would  almost  think,  must  have  ari- 
sen from  a  different  reading,  though  there  is  none  entirely  con- 
formable to  it  in  the  known  MSS.  and  versions.  It  may,  indeed, 
be  thought  an  objection  against  the  common  reading,  that  there 
is  something  like  exaggeration  in  the  sentiment.  How  is  it  pos- 
sible that  a  man's  reason  for  not  believing  what  is  told  him, 
should  be  that  it  is  true?  That  this  should  be  his  known  or  ac- 
knowledged reason,  is  certainly  impossible.  To  think  or  per- 
ceive a  thing  to  be  true,  and  to  believe  it,  are  expressions  entire- 
ly synonymous.  In  this  way  explained,  it  would,  no  doubt,  be 
a  contradiction  in  terms.  The  truth  of  the  matter  may,  never- 
theless, be  the  real,  though,  w  ith  regard  to  himself,  the  unknown, 
cause  of  his  unbelief.  A  man's  mind  may,  by  gross  errors,  and 
inveterate  prejudices,  be  so  alienated  from  the  simplicity  of  truth, 
that  the  silliest  paradoxes,  or  wildest  extravagancies,  in  opinion, 
shall  have  a  better  chance  of  gaining  his  assent,  than  truths 
almost  self-evident.  And  this  is  all  that,  in  strictness,  is  implied 
in  the  reproach. 

46.  Which  of  you  convicteth  me  ?  t/?  i\  C/ioav  tXiyx"  t^^  '■>  ^• 
T.  Which  of  you  convinceth  me?  The  word  convinceth  is  not  the 
proper  term  in  this  place.     It  relates  only  to  the  opinion  of  the 


448  NOTES  ON 


Cli.  VIII, 


person  himself  about  whom  the  question  is.  Our  Lord  here,  in 
order  to  show  that  the  unbelief  of  his  hearers  had  no  reasonable 
excuse,  challenges  them  openly,  to  convict  him,  if  they  can,  in 
any  instance,  of  a  deviktion  from  truth.  The  import  of  this  is, 
bring  evidence  of  such  a  deviation,  evince  it  to  the  world.  A 
man  may  be  convinced,  that  is  not  convicted.  Nay,  it  is  even 
possible  that  a  man  may  be  convicted,  who  is  not  convinced.  I 
am  astonished  that  Dod.  has  missed  observing  this  distinction. 
He  is  almost  the  only  modern  translator  into  Eng.  who  has 
missed  it. 

2  Of  falsehood,  7r$pi  u/^cc^nxg.  E.  T.  Of  sin.  'Af^xpria,  not 
only  signifies  s/«,  in  the  largest  acceptation,  but  error,  false, 
hood,  a  departure  from  truth.  Its  being  contrasted  here  to  ot?^n. 
Csix,  fixes  it  to  this  sense.  It  immediately  follows.  And  if  1 
speak  truth,  zchrj  do  ye  not  believe  me  ? 

51.  Shall  7ievcr  see  death,  S-avxr^v  a  u.>]  B-iu^T)-))  m  nv  ectavx. 
Hey.  Shall  not  die  for  ever.  This  is  at  least  a  very  unusual  ex- 
pression., If  not  for  ever  do  not  here  mean,  never,  it  would  not 
be  easy,  from  the  known  laws  of  the  language,  to  assign  its  pre- 
cise meaning.  But  the  sense,  say  they,  is,  He  shall  not  perish 
eternally.  He  shall  not  suffer  eternal  death.  I  admit  that  this 
is  the  meaning  which  our  Lord  had  to  the  expression  which  he 
then  used.  But  this  meaning  is  as  clearly  conveyed  in  the  E.  T. 
as  in  the  Greek  original.  Now,  if  we  could  make  the  expression 
clearer  in  Eng.  than  it  is  in  the  Gr.  we  ought  not,  in  the  present 
case,  to  do  it ;  because  we  cannot  do  it,  without  hurting  the 
scope  of  the  writer  in  recording  this  dialogue,  which  shows  the 
manner  wherein  our  Lord,  whilst  he  taught  his  faithful  follow. 
ers,  was  misunderstood  by  his  enemies.  The  probability,  nay, 
even  the  possibility,  of  some  of  their  mistakes  will  be  destroy, 
ed,  if  his  expressions  be  totally  divested  of  their  darkness,  or 
even  ambiguity.  Our  Lord  spoke,  doubtless,  of  eternal  death, 
when  he  said,  5-«v«tov  a  f^tt  .^^eapyjtr)),  but,  it  is  certain,  that  he 
was  understood  by  most  of  his  hearers  as  speaking  of  natural 
death ;  the  words  then  ought  to  be  susceptible  of  this  interpre. 
tation.  He  perceived  their  mistake,  but  did  not  think  pro- 
per to  make  any  change  on  his  language.  The  only  equivo- 
cal word  here  is  B-xvoiroi;,  death.  E<5  rov  cciuvet,  with  a  negative 
particle,  when  the  sense  is  not  confined  by  the  verb,  has  invaria- 
bly the  same  meaning,  which  is  never.     See  Mt.  xxi.  19.  Mr.. 


CH.  viii.  S.  JOHN.  449 

iii.  29.  J.  iv.  14.  x.  28.  xiii.  8.  1  Cor.  tHi.  13.  I  said,  when  the 
sense  is  not  confined  by  the  verb,  because  when  the  verb  implies 
duration,  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  different;  for  it  then  de- 
notes not  alisays,  not  perpetuallj/.  We  have  an  example  in  this 
chapter,  verso  35.  o  ^e  <5~»A(^  a  f^an  £v  t«  oix.i»  c-i<i  rov  ecium.  Now 
the  stave  abklcth  not  in  thefamilij  perpetually.  These  two,  «e- 
?)er,  and  not  perpetually^  are  the  only  acceptations  in  Scrip- 
ture I  have  discovered  of  the  phrase.  Now  it  cannot  be  the 
latter  of  these  that  has  been  meant  by  Hey.  ;  and  if  the  for. 
mer,  he  has  not  been  happy  in  the  choice  of  an  expression,  ch. 
ix.  32.  N. 

55.  Speak  falsely.     Diss.  III.  §  24. 

56.  Longed  to  see  my  day,  TtyccXXixs-xro  hx  th  t-^v  iifA.(puv  rn* 
tf*.yiv.  E.  T.  Rejoiced  to  see  my  day.  The  words  ivot  <?>),  imme- 
diately following  J!y,z>iA<««r«To,  show  that  it  cannot  mean  here  re- 
joiced,  but  desired  earnestly,  wished.^  longed.     It  is  so  render. 

ed  by  the  Sy.  pidd.     Nonnus,  to  the  same  purpose. 

The  Vul.  Er.  and  Zu.  say  exultavit,  but  both  Cas.  and  Be.  ges. 
iivit.  L.  CI.  Beau,  and  almost  all  the  late  Eng.  interpreters; 
nay,  and  even  the  most  eminent  Fr.  translators  from  the  Vul.  as 
P.  R.  Sa.  and  Si.  follow  in  this  the  interpretation  of  Be.  and 
Cas. 

2  He  saw.     His  faith  was  equivalent  to  seeing. 

57.  Jnd  thou  hast  seen  Abraham  ?  >^  AQ^ot.ety.\a)pa.^ct^ ;  E.  T. 
And  hast  thou  stcn  Abraham  ?  The  form  I  have  given  to  the  in- 
terrogation wiiirh  is  still  retained,  is  more  expressive  of  the  de- 
risive manner  in  which  the  question  seems  to  have  been  put.  Mt. 
xxvii.  11.  with  the  N. 

58.  Before  Abraham  v:as  born.,  1  am.  tt^iv  Aji^xuy,  yen<r.'^ctt,  lyu 
Hy.u  E.  T.  Before  Abraham  zcas,  I  am.  I  have  followed  here  the 
version  of  Er.  which  is  close  both  to  the  sense  and  to  the  letter: 
Antequam  Abraham  nasceretur,  ego  sum.  Dio.  renders  the 
words  in  the  same  way  in  Italian  :  Avanti  che  Abraam  fosse  nolo., 
io  sono.  Dod.  Hey.  and  Wy.  translate  in  Eng.  in  the  same  man- 
ner. Ey-a  «!«.<  may  indeed  be  rendered  /  teas.  The  present,  for 
the  imperfect,  or  even  for  the  preterperfect,  is  no  unusual  figure 
with  this  writer.     However,  as  an  uninterrupted  duration  from 


450  NOTES  ON  cu.  ix. 

the  time  spoken  of  to  the  time  then  present,  seems  to  have  been 
suggested,  I  thought  it  better  to  follow  the  common  method. 

59.  The  E.  T.  adds,  a7id  so  passed  by.  In  the  common  Greek 
■we  have  «^  vxpiiyiv  a'rai;.  But  these  words  are  not  in  the  Cam. 
MS.  nor  in  some  of  the  early  editions.  There  is  nothing  corres- 
ponding to  them  in  the  Sy.  Vol.  or  Sax.  versions.  Cas.  and  Lu. 
have  them  not.  Be.  considers  both  this,  and  the  clause  imme- 
diately  preceding,  to  wit,  passing  thro?cgh  the  midst  of  them., 
which  is  also  wanting  in  the  Vul.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions,  as  mere 
interpolations.  lie  has,  nevertheless,  retained  them  in  his  trans- 
lation. They  are  rejected  by  Gro.  and  Mill.  It  may  be  said 
that  one  of  these  clauses  at  least  (if  not  both)  adds  nothing  to 
the  sense :  they  have  much  the  appearance  of  having  been  copied 
from  other  Gospels. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

2.    Who  sinned;  this  man.,  or  his  jyarenls.,  that  he  was  born 
blind?  Diss.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19. 

7.   fVash  thine  eyes  in  the  pool  of  Siloam,  vi-\^xt  ««  t^v  -MXvfA.- 
^■ijB^xv  Tn  "ZiXuAi^.-     E.  T.    Wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam.     There 
are  two  words  which  occur  in  the  N.  T.  in  the  sense  of  zcashing 
or  bathing ;  yet  they  are  not  synonymous,  though  we  have  not 
terms  which  correspond  so  exactly  as  to  mark  the  distinction 
between  them.     The  words  are  v/5j-r«v  and  >^etv.     The  former. 
K^T«v,  or  rather  vtyrriTS-cti  (for  the  middle  voice  is  more  used), 
denotes  to  wash  or  bathe  a  part  only  of  the  body  ;  the  latter, 
A»f<v,  is  to  wash  or  bathe  the  whole  body.     This  difference,  if  I 
mistake  not,  is  uniformly  observed  in  the  N.  T.     Thus,  Mt.  vi. 
17.  ro  Trpo'T-aTrev  (rs  vt-^^xi  XV,  2.   a  viTrrevrxt  Ten;  x.»pcc<;  avrav.      And 
in   this  Gospel  the  distinction   is  expressly  marked,   ch.  xiii. 
10.    0    ><.iXii(>i.a(^   a   ;t;f««v    e;^;^    j;    ry?    Tro^xg  vf\}^ei<r6xi,   where  the 
participle  AfAs/^-t-'v®-  is  used  of  him  whose  whole  body  is  washed  ; 
and  the  verb  vii^xtSm  is  joined  with  rm  ttoSxi;.     That  the   verb 
Aji«v  is  commonly  used  in  the  manner  mentioned,  see  Acts,  ix. 
37.  Heb.  X.  23.  2  Pet.  ii.  22.  Rev.  i.  5.     In  all  which,  whether 
the  words  be  used  literally  or   metaphorically,   the  complete 
cleansing  of  the  body  or  person  is  meant.  There  is  only  one  pas- 


CH.  IX. 


S.  JOHN.  ^^^ 

sa^e  about  which  there  can  be  any  doubt.    It  is  in  Acts   xvi.  33. 
Xe  the  Jailor,  upon  his  conversion  by  Paul  an     S.las^  pn 
soners  comniitted  to  his  custody,  .s   sa.d  in  the  K  T.  to  ha^e 
Tsed  their  stripes.     The  verb  is  ..«..v.     But  let  .t  be  observ- 
X  lat   hi  is  not'an  accurate  version  of  theGr.  phrase  .«..  «.« 
Z:  .A.v.^  wbich,  in  n.y  opinion,  implies bath.ng  the  .hole  body 
o    the  sake  both  of  cleaning  their  wounds,  and  adn.n.ster.ng 
V  f  fn  fhplr  Dersons      The  accusative  to  the  active  verb 
r:Ts    vl,:„   ;:'rl  u„ae..o„d.     T,.  fu,,  expression  U 

tween  the  words  i.  well  observed  in  the  Sep.     The  word  .».*, 
i„  Eng.  when  nsed  as  a  nen.er  verb,  without  a  ■■es™""'^;'™; 
„,„nly,  if  not  always,  understood  to  relate  to  the  whole  b  dy 
The  word  w^«  shows,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  sacred  an.ho 
,neant  only  a  part.     That  the  par.  meant  is  ,l.c  e,es,  ,s  rnan   e  t 
from  the  context.     Not  to  supply  then,,  therefore   ,n  hng.   s  ,n 
eirect  to  alter  the  sense.     Nonnus,  agreeably  to  th,s  -?«-'-". 
says  ,»n  .,..  ,.«®-.     And  when  the  man  Inmself  relates  to  the 
people,  verse  U,  how  he  had  been  cured,  Nonnus  thus  expresses 
this  circumstance: 

And  afterwards,  verse  15,  to  the  Pharisees  he  says, '..V,   ^«- 
/ov  m^».     Mr.  vii.  3,  4.   N. 

8  They  zcho  had  before  seen  him  blind,  i^  .^.«e«vr.?  ccvrcv  to 
...or^e-  'or.  r.4,A^  .v.  Vul.  Qui  viderunt  eum  prius  quia  men- 
Luserat.  Conformable  to  this  are  the  Al.  Cam.  and  several 
other  MSS.  which,  instead  of  rv(px(^,  read  ^^.^car,,.  Most  ol 
the  ancient  versions  agree  in  this  with  the  Vul.  It  makes  no  ma- 
terial  ditference  in  the  story. 

9  Others,  He  is  like  him,  «aA».  ^e,  en  \^o.^  <^vrco  £^<».  Vul. 
Alii  autem,  Nequaquam,  sed  similis  est  ei.  In  conformity  to 
this,  four  MSS.  instead  of  \r,  read  ^^i  «M'.  The  Sy.  and  some 
other  versions  agree  also  with  the  Vul. 

16.  'S,^iirf4M  -jv  £»  etvToii'     Diss.  IX.  P-  HI-  ^  ^• 

17     What  sayest  thou  of  him  for  siving  thee  sight  ?  S.  n  Xe. 

y«,  ..,  u.r.,  V<  .v.|.  .s  T«  .^^«A^«  ;   E.  T.  miat  sauest  thou 

of  him,  that  he  hath  opened  thine  eyes  ?  Vul.   Ta  cjuid  dicis  de 

L  qui  aperuif  oculos  fuos  ?  It  would  appear  that  the  La.  trans. 


452  NOTES  ON  CH.  IX. 

lator  has  read  ej  for  'on.  It  suits  the  sense  very  well,  but  has 
no  support  from  MSS.  versions,  or  ancient  authors.  The  com- 
mon reading  is  unexceptionable  ;  but  the  expression  in  the  E.  T. 
does  not  convey  the  meaning  so  distinctly  as  could  be  wished. 
The  sense  is  well  expressed  by  Ham.  in  his  paraphrase.  "  What 
•'  opinion  of  him  hath  this  work  of  power  and  mercy  to  thee, 
"  wrought  in  thee  ?" 

22.  Should  be  expelled  the  synagogue^  uTeocrvvxyay®^  yevitren. 
This  corresponds,  in  their  discipline,  to  what  we  call  excommu- 
nication. 

24.  Give  glory  to  God,  Ltc,  So^av  ra  Qtu.  This  does  not 
mean,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  '  Give  God  the  praise  for  thy 
^  cure.'  The  import  is,  '  Glorify  God  by  confessing  ingenuously 
'  the  truth.'  This  expression  shows  that  they  believed,  or  af- 
fected to  believe,  that  he  had  told  them  lies,  and  that  they  Avant- 
ed  to  extort  a  confession  from  him.  It  was  the  expression  used 
by  Joshua,  ch.  vii.  18,  19.  to  Achan,  when  he  would  induce  him 
to  confess  his  guilt  in  relation  to  the  accursed  thing.  It  was 
adopted  afterwards  by  the  judges,  for  adjuring  those  accused  or 
suspected  of  crimes  to  acknowledge  the  truth  as  in  the  sight  of 
God.  What  follows  entirely  suits  this  sense.  Their  speech  is 
to  this  effect:  '  You  cannot  impose  upon  us  by  this  incredible 
story.  We  know  that  the  man  you  speak  of,  who  openly  pro- 
fanes the  Sabbath,  is  a  transgressor,  and  therefore  can  have  no 
authority  or  commission  from  God:  It  will,  therefore,  be  the 
wisest  thing  you  can  do,  to  confess  the  truth  honestly,  as  thereby 
you  will  give  glory  to  God.'  It  would  appear  from  their  tam- 
pering so  much  with  this  man,  that  they  hoped  by  his  means  io 
delect  some  fraud  or  collusion,  by  the  use  of  which  our  Lord  had 
procured  so  extraordinary  a  fame  for  working  miracles.  But 
being  disappointed  in  their  expectations  from  him,  they  were  so 
incensed  that  they  resolved  immediately  to  excommunicate  him. 

27.  Did  ye  not  hear?  >^  ««  tiKUFctn;  E.  T.  And  ye  did  not 
hear.  Vul.  Et  amlistis.  This  translator  has  read  t^  tiKHTotre  ; 
a  reading  which  has  no  support  from  antiquity,  except  the  Sax. 
version.  I  think  the  clause  ought  to  be  read  as  a  question,  a 
manner  frequent  in  this  Gospel.  If  it  be  rendered  in  the  com- 
mon way,  it  must  mean,  '  Ye  did  not  mind  what  was  told  you.' 
i-f  so.  the  verb  «x««v  is  used  twice  in  the  same  verse  in  senses  to- 


::^H.  X. 


S.  JOHN.  453 


tally  different.  Such  an  interpretation  as  supposes  this,  unless 
■when  a  paronomasia  is  evidently  intended,  ought  to  be  avoided 
as  much  as  possible. 

32.  Never  rcoj  it  heard  before,  ix.  th  «i»v©-  ax.  vikht^i^.  Act' 
»iuv(^,  or  iK  ra  xmv^,  is  a  literal  version  frequently  occurring 
in  the  Sep.  of  the  Ileb,  word  dSj?o  in  like  manner  as  «?  rov  xiai- 
va;,  or  tan;  ra  «<«v©-  is  of  d'?i5?V.  The  former  strictly  means/rowi 
clerm'ti/,  the  latter  to  eternity.  In  this  sense  they  are  applied 
to  God,  Ps.  xc.  2.  But  in  popular  language,  the  former  often 
denotes  no  more  than  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  or  even 
from  very  early  times  ;  and  c «  tov  cctmoc  docs  not  always  mean  to 
ctcrnitij,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  That  the  use  is  nearly 
the  same  in  pagan  writers,  has  been  very  well  shovvn  by  Wet.  The 
meaning  of  neither  phrase,  when  accompanied  with  a  negative, 
admits  much  variation.  The  one  is  antehac  nimquam,  never  be., 
fore;  the  other  nunqnam  dchinc,  n  ver  after.  In  regard  to  the 
latter,  an  exception  was  taken  notice  of,  on  ch.  viii.  51.  Such 
an  interpretation  as  from  the  age,  which  some  have  proposed, 
conveys  no  meaning  where  no  particular  age  has  been  spoken  of. 
Nor  is  there  any  age  of  the  world,  that  appears  tv  have  been  dis- 
tin^uished  ia  Scripture,  as  the  age,  by  way  of  eminence.  But 
a  threat  deal  of  the  reasoning  used  in  criticism,  especially  scrip- 
tural criticism,  is  merely  hypothetical. 

34.  Thou  least  altogether  born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou  teach 
us  ?  This  reproach  proceeded  from  the  same  general  principle 
from  which  the  question  of  the  disciples,  verse  2.  arose. 


CHAPTER  X. 

2.  The  shepherd  alisays  entereth  bi/  the  door,  o  Se  ci'ripx,of^e^ 
v^  hc&  r^js  ^v^xi,  "jFotfjLtiv  £?■!  red]/  Tr^oQarMv.  E.  T.  He  that  enteretli 
in  by  the  door  is  the  shepherd  of  the  sheep.  This  mode  of  speak- 
ing with  us  conveys  the  notion,  that  the  shepherd  is  the  only 
person  who  enters  by  the  door  ;  yet  the  owner,  the  door-keeper, 
and  the  sheep  themselves,  also  enter  the  same  way.  The  original 
expression  is  manifestly  intended  to  denote  the  constant,  not  the 
peculiar  use  which  the  shepherd  makes  of  the  door,  as  opposed 
to  the  constant  use  of  thieves  and  robbers  to  force  their  entrance, 
VOL.  IV.  ^7 


454  NOTES  ON  ch.  x„ 

by  breaking  or  climbing  over  the  fence.  The  comparison  is  made 
not  to  the  folds  used  by  the  common  people  in  remote  parts  of 
the  country,  but  to  those  belonging  to  the  rich  in  the  neighbour- 
liood  of  a  populous  city,  where  the  walls  and  other  fences  need 
to  be  stronger,  and  the  entrance  more  carefully  kept,  on  account 
of  (he  greater  danger  from  thieves. 

8.   All  zcho  have  eyitered  in  another  manner^  wavrts  oo-oi  Trpo 
sf^H  iiXSav.     E.  T.  All  thai  ever  came  before  me.     Bat  there  is  a 
remarkable  difference  of  reading  on  this  passage.     The  wosd-i 
5rf9  e//.ii,  on  which  the  meaning  of  the  sentence  entirely  depends, 
are  wanting  in  some  of  the  most  ancient,  and  in  a  very  great 
number  of  other  MSS.     There  is  nothing  corresponding  to  them 
in  the  Vul.  which  says  simply,  Omn  s  quotquot  venerutit.     The 
first  Syi  in  like  manner,  lias  them  not:  the  second  Sy.  has  an  ex- 
pression answering  to  them  ;  but  it  is  marked,  as  spurious,  with 
an  asterisk.     Neither  the  Go.  nor  the  Sax.  has  them.     They  are 
wanting  in  the  Com.  and  some  other  early  editions.     Most  of 
the  ancient  expositors  appear  not  to  have  read  them.     Some, 
however,  have.     Among  these  is  Nonnus,  who  says,  TravTf?  oV«< 
vctp®^  yiX6ov.     This  is  the  state  of  the  external  evidence,  with  re- 
gard to  the  words  in  question.     And  if  it  be  found  such  as  to 
leave  the  mind  in  suspense  about  their  authenticity,  the  internal 
evidenceagainst  them  does,  in  my  opinion,  turn  the  scale.  When 
our  Lord,  in  explaining  his  public  character,  uses  a  comparison 
mtroduced  by  the  words  I  am,  it  is  always  his  manner  to  suit 
what  he  next  says  of  himself,  to  that,  whatever  it  be,  he  has 
chosen  to  be  represented  by.     Of  this  we  have  several  examples 
in  this  Gospel.     Thus,  when  he  says,  ch.  vi.  51.  /  am  the  living 
bread  zohich  descended  from  heaven,  it  is  immediately  added, 
fVhos9  eateth  of  this  bread — This  perfectly  suits  the  comparison 
adopted ;  for  bread  is  baked  to  be  eaten.     Again,  ch.  xiv.  6.  / 
am  the  icaij,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life  /  no  man  cometh  unto 
the  Father  but  by  me  [who  am  the  way'].     Again,  ch.  xv.  1.  / 
am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father  is  the  vine-dresser.     It  is  add- 
ed, Every  barren  branch  in  me  \j.he  vine^  he  loppeth  off.     To 
come  to  the  context,  verse  11.  /  am  the  good  shepherd ;  it  fol- 
lows, the  good  shepherd  giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep  ;  and,  last. 
ly,  verse  9.  /  am  the  door  ;  such  as  enter  by  me  [thedoor~\  shall 

he  safe. Now  to  this  manner,  so  uniformly  observed,  the 

words  under  examination  cannot  be  reconciled.     /  am  the  door. 


CH.  X. 


S.  JOKN.  455 


all  that  ever  came  before  me,  ^pa  ^ca,  that  is,  before  I  the  door 
came.  But  do  we  ever  speak  of  a  door^s  coming  to  any  place  ? 
This  is  so  far  from  illustrating  tiie  meaning,  that  it  is  inconsis- 
tent with  any  meaning,  and  therefore  leads  the  mind  to  devise 
some  other  image  which  may  suit  the  words  here  used.  Such,  in- 
deed, is  that  employed,  verse  11.  where  our  Lord  calls  himself 
ike  shepherd.  But  by  no  r-^le  of  interpretation  can  we  borrow 
light  from  a  circumstance  which  had  not  yet  been  mentioned. 
Of  this  incoherence  Maldonat,  though  he  explains  the  words  dif- 
ferently, was  entirely  sensible.  Nan  videntiir  hcec  enim,  says 
he,  cuin  prcecedenti  versa  satis  apte  covjungi.  Si  enim  dixisset 
se  pastorem  esse,  commode  ct  apposite  adderet  alios  7ion  pastores 
sed fares  et  latrones  fuisse  ;  cum  autem  dixerit  se  esse  ostiam, 
non  apparet  qua  ratione,  qua  conseqiientia  addat  alios  fuisse  la- 
trones. But,  beside  this  unsuitableness  to  the  context,  the  mean- 
ing expressed  by  dra/  Trpa  £f/.ii  «A^«v,  appears  exceptionable.  Who 
were  those  that  came  before  him  ?  Not  Moses  and  the  Prophets, 
surely.  For  of  these  our  Lord,  far  from  calling  them  thieves 
and  robbers,  always  speaks  honourably.  Yet  to  these  we  should 
otherwise  most  readily  apply  the  expression,  epecially  when  we 
consider  that  Jesus  styles  them  to  his  disciples,  the  prophets  who 
Tcere  before  you.  '  The  persons  here  meant,'  say  some,  '  are 
'  those  who,  before  his  time,  assumed  the  character  of  Messiah.' 
But  who  were  these?  It  does  not  appear  from  any  history,  sacred 
or  profane,  that  any  person,  before  his  time,  ever  assumed  the 
character  or  title  of  Messiah.  Afterwards,  indeed,  agreeably  to 
our  Lord's  prediction,  it  was  assumed  by  many.  Theudas  and 
Judas  of  Galilee  cannot  be  meant.  They  MCre  rather  contem- 
poraries. And  though  both  Avere  seditious  leaders,  and  gave 
themselves  out  for  extraordinary  personages,  we  have  no  evidence 
that  either  of  them  pretended  to  be  the  Messiah.  For  all  these 
reasons,  I  think  tt^o  £;tt«  ought  to  be  rejected  as  an  interpolation. 
The  external  evidence,  or  what  I  may  call  the  testimonies  in  its 
favour,  are  at  least  counterbalanced  by  those  against  it ;  and  the 
internal  evidence  arising  from  the  sense  of  the  expression,  and 
the  scope  of  the  passage,  is  all  on  the  contrary  side.  I  read,  there- 
fore, with  the  Sy.  the  Vul.  and,  1  may  add,  the  old  Italic,  of 
■which  the  Sax.  is  esteemed  by  critics  a  literal  translation,  Truvrei 
oToi  >;>iflov.  I  consider  tiXGov  as  used  here  for  hv^x^qti,  the  simple 
for  the  compaund,  used  verse  1.  and  the  word  a>^xx,okv  under. 


456  NOTES  ON 


CH.  X. 


Stood  as  supplied  from  that  verse.  It  is  not  unusual,  when  there 
is  occasion  for  repeating  a  sentiment  which  has  been  advanced  a 
little  before,  to  abridge  the  expression,  on  the  supposition  that 
what  is  wanting,  the  hearers  will  supply  from  memory.  It  will 
perhaps  be  objected  to  this  explanation,  that  it  makes  this  sen- 
tence a  mere  repetition  of  what  is  said  in  verse  1st.  I  own  that 
the  affirmation  in  verse  1st  is  here  ycpcated,  but  not  merely  so, 
as  it  is  attended  with  a  very  important  exijlaiiation.  The  im- 
port of  the  two  verses,  which  will  show  e.vactly  (heir  relation, 
may  be  thus  expressed  :   1.    'They  who  enter  the  fold   olher- 

*  wise  than  by  the  door,  arc  thieves  and  robbers.  7.  1  am  the 
'  door.      8.  Consequently  they  who  enter  otherwise    than    by 

*  me,  are  thieves  and  robbers.'  This  makes  the  eighth  verse, 
as  it  were,  the  conclusion  of  a  syllogism,  of  which  the  first 
and  the  seventh  are  (he  premises.  It  is  remarkable,  that  this 
has  appeared  to  be  the  general  import  of  the  passage,  even  (o 
those  interpreters  who  seem  either  not  to  have  known  how  it 
could  be  deduced,  or  have  attempted  a  method  absolutely  inde« 
fensible.  Dr.  Clarke  (see  his  paraj'hrase  of  verse  8.)  gives  a 
sense  to  the  words  which  coincides  with  that  here  given  ;  but  he 
does  not  inform  us  how  he  makes  it  out,  or  in  what  manner  he 
read  the  original.  Eisner  has  endeavoured  to  draw  the  same 
meaning  from  the  reading  in  the  common  Gr. ;  but,  in  my  judg- 
ment, without  success.  Epxi'^^m  ^rpo  Bvpa^  for  to  go  past  a  door, 
is,  I  suspect,  utterly  unexampled.  Besides,  who  was  ever  ac, 
counted  either  thief  or  robber,  for  going  past  the  door,  if  he  did 
not  attempt  to  break  iuto  the  enclosure  ?  But  it  may  be  said,  if 
the  words  ■a-^o  £.«.«  ought  to  be  rejected,  how  shall  we  account  for 
their  introduction  into  so  many  copies  ?  To  this  I  can  only  re- 
ply, that  the  misapprehension  of  the  sense,  in  some  early  tran- 
scriber, may  not  improbably  have  led  him  to  take  this  method  of 
supplying  the  ellipsis.  It  is  in  this  manner  that  the  greatest 
freedoms  which  have  been  taken  with  the  sacred  text  are  to  be 
accounted  for.  Lpon  the  whole,  our  Lord,  when  he  compares 
himself  to  a  shepherd,  speaks  in  the  character  of  the  great  pro- 
phet or  teacher  of  God's  people;  when  he  compares  himself  to 
the  door  of  the  sheep-fold,  he  signifies  that  it  is  by  him,  that  is, 
by  shar:-ng  in  his  grace,  and  partaking  of  his  spirit,  that  the  un- 
der-shepherds  and  teachers  must  be  admitted  into  his  fold,  that 
is,  into  his  church  or  kingdom,  and  participate  in  all  the  spiri- 
tual blessings  belonging  to  its  members.  In  this  view,  the  word^ 


CH.  X.  S.  JOHN.  457 

are  directed  chiefly  against  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  considered 
as  teachers,  whose  doctrine  was  far  from  breathing  the  same  spi- 
rit with  his,  and  whose  chief  object  was,  not  like  that  of  the 
good  shepherd,  to  feed  and  to  protect  the  tlock,  but,  like  that 
of  the  robber,  or  of  the  wolf,  to  devour  them.  I  shall  only  add, 
before  I  conclude  this  note,  that  the  interpretation  here  given 
suits  the  words  that  follow,  as  well  as  those  that  precede.  Thus, 
"  7.  I  am  the  door.  8.  All  who  enter  in  another  manner  are 
"  thieves  and  robbers.  9.  A.11  who  enter  by  me,  shall  be  safe." 
How  common  was  this  method  with  our  Lord,  to  enforce  his 
sentiments  by  affirmations  and  neg^iom  thus  connected  1 

14  15.  I  both  knozo  my  ozon^  and  am  knoiui  by  ihein  (even 
as  the  Father  knoizeth  me,  and  I  knozs  the  Father)  ,•  and  I  give 
my  life  for  the  sheep.     Ch.  vi.  57.  N.   Diss.  XU.  P.  IV.  §  3. 

16.  /  have  other  sheep  besides,  zrhich  are  not  of  this  fold. 
This  is  spoken  of  the  Gentiles,  who  were  afterwards  to  be  re- 
crived  into  his  church  on  the  same  footing  with  the  Jews. 

18.  No  one  forceth  it  from  me,  shm  m^h  uvt-^v  utt'  sf^a.  E. 
T.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me.  This  can  hardly  be  said  with 
propriety,  since  he  suffered  by  the  hands  of  others.  The  Eng, 
verb  take,  does  not  express  the  full  import  of  the  Greek  aiptu. 
In  this  place  it  is  evidently  our  Lord's  intention  to  inform  his 
hearers,  that  his  enemies  could  not,  by  violence,  take  his  life, 
if  he  did  not  voluntarily  put  himself  in  their  power. 

22.  The  feast  of  the  dedication,  r*  tyx-ccinx.  It  might  be  ren- 
dered, more  literally,  the  feast  of  the  renovation.  But  the  other 
name  has  obtained  the  sanction  of  use.  This  festival  was  insti- 
tuted by  Judas  Maccabeus,  1  Mac.  iv.  59.  in  memory  of  their 
pulling  down  the  altar  of  burnt  offerings,  which  had  been  pro. 
faned  by  the  Pagans,  and  building  a  new  one,  dedicated  to  the 

true  God. 

2  It  being  winter,  x^f^'"^  «"•  This  festival  began  on  the  twenty. 

fifth  of  the  month  Casleu,  and  was  kept  for  eight  da)S.     It  fell 

about  the  middle  of  our  December. 

25.  /  said  to  you,  but  ye  believed  not,  "  the  works  zvhich  I 
*'  do  in  my  father''  s  name,  testify  of  me,""  «5rflv  v/^iv  >^  a  TrtTivsrs' 
TO,  eciyu,  OS.  tyu  vaica  tv  tu  ovofixn  ra  Trur^oi  f^H,  rxvrx  fcaerv^ei  Trept 

(fAH,     E.  T.  /  told  you,  and  ye  believed  not ;  the  works  that  1 


45S  NOTES  ON  CH.  x. 

do  in  myfaiher''s  name^  they  bear  loilncss  of  me.  The  words 
are  capable  of  being  rendered  either  way  ;  but  there  is  this  diHer- 
ence:  rendered  in  the  one  way,  they  are  conformable  to  fact,  as 
appears  from  this  very  Gospel — "  I  said  to  you,  the  works 
"  which  I  do,''  Sfc.  That  he  had  said  this,  we  learn  from  eh.  v. 
36.  In  the  other  way  rendered,  the  words  "  I  told  you,"  can 
refer  only  to  what  they  asked  him  to  tell  them,  to  wit,  whether 
he  were  the  Messiah  or  not.  Now,  it  does  not  appear  from  this, 
or  from  any  other  Gospel,  that  he  had  ever  told  them  this  iu  ex- 
press terms,  as  they  wanted  him  to  do.  It  may  be  proper  to  ob- 
serve, that  the  Vul.  is  here,  in  respect  of  the  sense,  agreeable  to 
the  version  I  have  given  ;  but,  in  respect  of  the  expression,  plain- 
ly points  out  a  different  reading.  Loquor  vobis,  et  non  credi- 
iis,  opera  quce  ego  facto  in  nomine  putris  mei,  hax  testimonium, 
perhibent  de  me.  In  conformity  to  this  the  Cam.  MS.  alone, 
reads  XccXw  for  f(7rev. 

26,  27.  Ye  believe  not,,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep.  My 
sheep^  as  I  told  you,,  obey  my  voice,  a  Tn^-eviTe'  a  yx^  $^s  sk  rav 
T^oQxTojv  ruv  e/itavj  x-x6ui  etTTov  ii/n^iv.  Tot,  TT^aQxroi  tx  ef^cH  Ttn  <pa>vtys  f^a 
XKHit.  E.  T.  Ye  believe  not.,  because  ye  are  tiot  of  my  sheep,  as 
I  said  unto  you.  My  sheep  hear  my  voice.  This  case  is  simi- 
lar to  the  former :  kx^u^  uttov  i/^tv  is  joined,  by  our  translators, 
to  the  preceding  words  ;  I  join  them  to  those  which  follow.  My 
reason  is  the  same  as  in  the  foregoing  instance.  The  words  which 
precede,  had  not,  as  far  as  we  ai-e  informed,  been  expressly  used 
by  our  Lord  ;  the  subsequent  words  had.  On  the  common  Gr. 
there  is  no  change  made  but  in  the  pointing.  Indeed,  the  clause 
kx6a)i;  eiTTov  vyuv,  which  has  occasioned  the  question,  is  wanting  in 
several  MSS.  as  well  as  in  the  Vul.  Cop.  Arm.  and  Sax.  versions. 
To  recur  to  the  authority  of  later  interpreters  and  critics,  Mould, 
in  so  plain  a  case,  be  quite  unnecessary. 

29.  My  Father,  zoho  gave  them  me  is  greater  than  all,  o  ttx- 
t;?^  im.«  05  ^i^MM  yM  (jlul^uv  TTxvTm  £?■(.  Vul.  Pater  meus,  quod 
dedit  mihi,  majus  omnibus  est.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Gr. 
MSS.  which  can  confer  the  least  probability  on  this  version  of 
the  La.  interpreter.  Two  or  three  MSS.  have  o  for  o?.  The  Al. 
reads  ^e«(^oy  for  /Ast^m.  The  Cop.  and  Sax.  versions  agree  with 
the  Vul. 


CH.  X.  S.  JOHN.  459 

30.  I  and  the  Father  are  one,  tyu  kxi  i  rruTt,^  £v  E5-|M,ev.  The 
word  is  not  a?,  otie  person,  but  ly,  one  thing,  or  the  same  thing. 
It  might  have  been  so  rendered  here;  but  the  expression  is  too 
homely,  in  the  opinion  of  some  excellent  critics,  to  suit  the  dig- 
nity  of  the  subject.  The  greater  part  of  foreign  interpreters  have 
thought  otherwise.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  Be.  Ego  et  pater  unum 
sunius.  Lu.  3Ic5  unH  Ucr  iiatcr  Sinn  eing,  Dio.  lo  e  il  padre 
siamo  una  istessa  cosa.  L  CI.  Mon  pere  et  mot  sommes  une  • 
seule  chose.  P.  R.  Si-and  Sa.  Une  meme  chose.  What  is  dis- 
tinguished in  the  original,  we  ought,  if  possible,  to  distinguish. 
Yet  no  Eng.  translator  known  to  me  has,  in  this,  chosen  to  de- 
sert the  common  translation. 

34.  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law  ?  Here  we  find  the  book  of 
Psalms,  whence  the  passage  quoted  is  taken,  included  under  the 
name  lais,  which  is  sometimes  used  for  the  whole  Scriptures  of 
(he  O.  T. 

35.  To  whom  the  xoord  of  God  was  addressed,  7r^««  w?  o  A9V«? 
TH  0e«  eya^rc.  It  has  been  observed  justly,  that  the  words  may 
be  rendered,  against  whom  the  word  of  God  was  pointed.  What 
gives  countenance  to  this  interpretation,  is,  that  God,  in  the 
place  quoted  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6.),  is  severely  rebuking  and  threaten- 
ing wicked  judges  and  magistrates.  On  the  whole,  however,  I 
prefer  the  version  here  given. 

2  And  if  the  language  of  Scripture  is  unexceptionable— K»i  a 
^mctrxi  xv6r.vcc,  v  y^oc<p„.—K.  T.  And  the  Scripture  cannot  be 
broken..  I  do  not  know  a  meaning  which,  by  any  of  the  receiv- 
ed laws  of  interpretation,  we  can  affix  to  this  expression.  Scrip- 
ture cannot  be  broken.  Yet  it  is  impossible  for  one  who  attends 
to  our  Lord's  argument,  as  it  runs  in  the  original,  to  entertain 
a  doubt  about  the  clause  which  answers  to  it  in  the  Gr.  Our 
Lord  defends  what  he  had  said  from  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  by 
showing  its  conformity  to  the  style  of  Scripture  in  less  urgent 
cases  :  insomuch  that,  if  the  propriety  of  Scripture  language  be 
admitted,  the  propriety  of  his  must  be  admitted  also.  This  is 
one  of  those  instances  wherein,  though  it  is  very  easy  for  the 
translator  to  discover  the  meaning,  it  is  very  difficult  to  express 
it  in  words  which  shall  appear  to  correspond  to  those  of  his 
author.  In  such  cases,  a  little  circumlocution  has  always  been 
?.llowed. 


460  NOTES  ON 


CH.  >r. 


36.    Whom  the  Father  hath  consecrated  his  Apostle  to  the 

world,  ov   0   TTxTiip  ^ytctm  f^  otTTBTSi^iV  «5  Tov  H.oT/Lu,v.       E.  T.   fVhom 
the  Father  hath  sanctijied  and  sent  into  the  world.     That  ay/at- 
<^£<v,  in  Scripture,  often  denotes  to  consecrate^  to  set  apart  to  any 
religious  or  important  purpose,  has  been  shown,  Diss.  VI.  P. 
IV.  §  9 — 13.     It  is  evident,  that  it  is  only  in  this  sense  applica- 
ble here.     There  are  two  words  which  Jesus  chiefly  uses  for  ex- 
pressing his  mission.     One  is,  tte^^^^*,  the  other  «7ros-fM» :  the 
former  a  more  familiar,  the  latter  a  more  solemn,  term.     It  is 
from  the  latter  that  the  name  Apostle  is  derived.     Our  Lord,  in 
my  opinion,  has  often  an  allusion  to  this  title,  when  it  does  not 
appear  in  the  E.  T.  because  both  words  are  promiscuously  ren- 
dered send.     And  though  here  the  word  send  does  but  feebly 
express  the  import  of  the  original  ;  for  it  may  be  said  of  every 
man,  that  God  hath  sent  him  into  the  world  ;  I  do  not  deny  that, 
in  most  cases,  both  words  are  properly  so  rendered,  and  that  the 
purport  of  the  sentence  is  justly  conveyed.     In  a  few,  however, 
where  there  seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  title  etTroToXoi.,  by  which 
he  had  distinguished  the  twelve,  it  may  be  allowable  to  change 
the  term  for  the  sake  of  preserving  the  allusion.    Thus,  ch.  xvii, 
18,  when  our  Lord,  in  an  address  to  God,  represents  the  mission 
of  his  Apostles  by  him,  as  analogous  to  that  which  he  had  him- 
self received  from  his  heavenly  Father,  he  uses  these  cmphaticai 
words:    K.a,6uq  t(4.e  etTrt^^Xoii  ^c,   t«v  Koru/>v,   KuyM  xTi?-HXcx,  uvrsi;  en 
rev  KoiTf^ov.     I  have,  for  the  sake  of  exhibiting  the  analogy  with 
like  energy,  rendered  the  words  in  this  manner :   as  thou  hast 
made  me  thj/  Apostle  to  the  zcorld,  I  have  made  them  my  Apos. 
ties  to  the  world.     Jesus  is  accordingly  called,  Heb.  iii.  1.  the 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  profession.     He  is  the  Apostle 
of  God  ;  they  were  the  Apostles  of  Christ.     Hence  appears  more 
strongly  the  propriety  of  what  he  said,  L,  x.  16. :  He  that  hear- 
cth  you,  heareth  me;  and  he  that  despiseth  you,  despiseth  me; 
and  he  that  despiseth  me,  despiseth  him  that  sent  me.  Thus  mak- 
ing them,  in  respect  of  their  mission  as  te^achers,  stand  in  the  same 
relation  to  him,  in  which  he,  as  Heaven's  interpreter,  stood  to 
God.     In  like  manner,  in  the  verse  under  examination,  as  the 
word  j/y/oKJ-e  evidently  means  consecrated,  or  set  apart  for  a  sa- 
cred office,  vytxo-e  }^  u'TTcrnXev  is,  by  a  common   idiom,  used  for 
5}y(tf65-£  TH  aTToriXXee-Sxt ;  or,  which  is  the  same,  iyMTiv  nvict  xtfo- 
^eXov. 


CJI.    XI. 


S.  JOHN.  461 


^  For  calling  himself  his  son,  on  hvov,  vi®^  ra  Qm  ftf^t.  E.  T. 
Because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God.  Let  it  be  observed,  that 
our  Lord's  word  here  is  6i(^,  not  i  6i<^.  It  is  not,  therefore, 
so  definite  as  the  common  version  makes  it.  At  the  same  time, 
the  want  of  the  article  in  Gr.  (as  I  have  elsewhere  observed)  does 
not  render  the  words  so  expressly  indefinite,  as,  in  our  language, 
,the  indefinite  article  would  render  them,  if  the  expression  were 
translated  a  Son  of  God.  For  the  salte,  therefore,  of  avoiding 
an  error  on  either  side,  I  have  chosen  this  oblique  manner  of  ex- 
pressing the  sentiment.     Mt.  xxvii.  54.  N. 

39.  Theij  attempted  again — -^jjryv  TrccXtv — .  The  Vul.  has  no 
word  answering  to  7ircc?^iv,  which  is  also  omitted  by  the  Cam.  and 
a  few  other  MSS. 


CHAPTER  XL 

4.  iVill  not  prove  fatal,  hk  t?-t  jr^©-  S-w^rev.  E,  T.  Is  not 
unto  death.  That  the  former  way  of  rendering  gives  the  full 
import  of  the  Gr.  expression,  as  used  here,  cannot  be  questioned. 
It,  at  the  same  time,  preserves  the  ambiguity. 

10.  Because  there  is  no  light,  on  ro  <pui  sk  c?-tv  en  uvra.  E.  T. 
Because  there  is  no  light  in  him.  Knatchbull  has  very  properly 
observed,  that  the  pronoun  ccvt0,  here,  manifestly  refers  to  the 
noun  K<j«r^»,  in  the  end  of  the  preceding  verse  ;  and  should,  there- 
fore, be  rendered  in  it.  Common  sense,  as  well  as  the  rules  of 
construction,  require  this  interpretation.  His  stumbling  in  the 
night,  is  occasioned  by  the  want  of  that  which  prevents  his  stumb- 
ling in  the  day.  In  it,  however,  is  better  omitted  in  Eng.  where 
it  would  encumber,  rather  than  enlighten,  the  expression,  of  it- 
self sufficiently  clear. 

"lb.  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life;  that  is,  '  I  am  the  au- 
'  thor  of  the  resurrection  and  of  the  life' — a  very  common  trope 
in  Scripture  of  the  effect  for  the  efficient.  In  this  way,  God  is 
called  our  salvation,  to  denote  our  Saviour  ;  and  Jesus  Christ 
is  said,  1  Cor.  i.  30.  to  be  made  of  God  unto  us,  zcisdom,  and 
righteousriess,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption  ;  that  is,  the 
source  of  these  blessings. 
VOL.   IV.  58 


461  '  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XI. 


27.  Thou  art  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  he  who  cometh 
into  the  world,  o-v  h  o  X^t?-^,  o  bt®^  m  ©e«,  o  «?  T«y  xoTfMv  t^xo- 
fAtt'^.  Fj.  T.  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should 
come  into  the  world.  I  have  had  occasion  to  take  notice  (in 
another  place.  Diss.  V.  P.  IV.  §  3 — 6.  14.)  of  the  three  titles 
just  now  mentioned,  as  different  denominations  or  descriptions 
bv  which  the  same  great  personage  was  distinguished.  I  have, 
therefore,  kept  them  distinct.  The  two  last  are,  as  it  were,  com- 
pounded into  one  in  the  E.  T.  I  have  also  observed,  that  the 
proper  ti<le  is  not  he  who  should  come,  but  he  who  cometh.  It 
Mas  very  natural  in  Mary,  when  professing  her  faith  in  Jesus,  in 
consequence  of  the  question  so  publicly  put  to  her,  to  mention 
all  the  principal  titles  appropriated  to  him  in  Scripture. 

37.  Who  gave  sight  to  the  blind  man,  o  avoi^x^  rug  ocpSotXi^m 
m  Ti/^As.  Vul.  Qui  aperuit  oculos  ca^ci  nati.  E.  T.  Which 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind.  There  is  no  Gr.  MS.  yet  known 
which  authorises  the  addition  of  7iati,  nor  any  version  but  the 
Cop.  The  singular  number,  with  the  article,  here  employed  by 
the  Evangelist,  shows  a  manifest  allusion  to  one  individual.  .'o< 
rv(i)Xoi  is  properly  the  blind,  which,  when  no  substantive  is  added, 
is  understood  tobe  plural. 

38.  Shut  up  with  a  stone,  Xi6^  emKuro  stt'  ocvtu.  E.  T.  A 
stone  lay  upon  it.  From  the  way  in  which  the  words  are  ren- 
dered in  the  Sy.  version,  and  from  a  regard  to  a  just  remark  of  Si. 
that  the  preposition  £9r<,  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  does  not  always 
imply  upon,  or  over,  I  have  been  induced  to  render  the  expres. 
sion  in  the  manner  above  mentioned ;  it  being  not  improbable, 
that,  in  this  respect,  the  sepulchre  was  similar  to  our  Lord's. 

39.  For  this  is  the  fourth  day,  TeTx^rxi<^  ya^  eri.  E.  T.  For 
he  hath  been  dead  four  days.  The  expression  is  abrupt  and  el- 
liptical ;  a  manner  extremely  natural  to  those  in  grief,  and,  there- 
fore, where  it  is  possible,  worthy  to  be  imitated  by  a  translator. 

41.  Then  they  removed  the  stone,  tipxv  av  rev  XiOov  «  vjv  o  rsSvjjKUi 
icu!*.tv(^.  The  last  clause,  k  ^jv  «  nivriKUi  kh/^iv©^,  is  wanting  alto- 
gether in  the  Vul.  the  Sy.  the  Sax.  the  Arm.  the  Eth.  the  Ara. 
and  the  Cop.  versions,  as  well  as  in  some  noted  MSS.  The 
words,  0  Ti6vijK<»i  KH/^ev®^,  are  wanting  in  the  Go.  and  the  second 
Sy.  versions,  and  in  the  Al.  MS.  which  reads  »  ;j  after  >j9av. 


CU.  XI. 


S.  JOHN.  463 


Nonnus  omits  the  clause  entirely.      It  is  rejected  by  Origen, 
Mill,  and  Bengelius  ;  and  plainly  adds  nothing  to  the  sense. 

45.  The  Vul.  after  Man'am,  adds  et  Marlham,  in  which  it  is 
singular. 

49.  Caiaphas.,  zcho  teas  high  priest  that  year.     L.  iii.  2.  N. 

^  Ye  are  utterly  at  a  loss,  u^e»5  ax,  ei^xre  a^ev.  E.  T.  Ye  /cnoii> 
nothing  at  all.  It  is  manifest,  from  the  whole  scope  of  the  pas- 
sage, that  it  is  not  with  the  ignorance  of  the  subject  about  which 
they  were  deliberating,  the  doctrine  and  miracles  of  our  Lord, 
nor  with  the  ignorance  of  the  law  for  the  punishment  of  oifenders 
of  all  denominations,  that  Caiaphas  here  upbraids  them.  Accord- 
ingly, we  do  not  find,  in  what  he  says,  any  thing  tending  to  give 
the  smallest  information  on  either  of  these  heads.  Yet  something 
of  this  kind  is  what  occurs  as  the  meaning,  on  first  reading  the 
words  in  most  translations.  But  what  he  upbraids  them  with 
here,  is  plainly  the  want  of  political  wisdom.  They  were  in  per. 
plexity ;  they  knew  not  what  to  resolve  upon,  or  what  measure 
to  adopf,  in  a  case  which,  as  he  pretended,  was  extremely  clear. 
It  would  appear,  that  some  of  the  sanhedrim  were  sensible  that 
Jesus  had  given  them  no  just  or  legal  handle,  by  any  thing  he 
had  either  done  or  taught,  for  taking  away  his  life ;  and  that,  in 
their  deliberations  on  the  subject,  something  had  been  advanced, 
which  made  the  high  priest  fear  they  would  not  enter  with  spirit 
and  resolution  into  the  business.  He,  therefore,  seems  here  to 
concede  to  those  who  appeared  to  have  scruples,  that,  though 
their  putting  Jesus  to  death  could  not  be  vindicated  by  strict  law 
or  justice,  it  might  be  vindicated  from  expediency  and  reason  of 
state,  or,  rather,  from  the  great  law  of  necessity,  the  danger  be. 
ing  no  less  than  the  destruction  of  their  country,  and  so  immi- 
nent, that  even  the  murder  of  an  innocent  man,  admitting  Jesus 
to  be  innocent,  was  not  to  be  considered  as  an  evil,  but  rather  as 
a  sacrifice,  every  way  proper  for  the  safety  of  the  nation.  May 
we  not  reasonably  conjecture,  that  such  a  manner  of  arguing 
must  have  arisen  from  objections  made  by  Nicodemus,  who,  as 
we  learn  from  ch.  vii,  50,  &c.  was  not  afraid  to  object  to  them 
the  illegality  of  their  proceedings,  or  by  Joseph  of  Ariraathea, 
who  was,  probably,  one  of  them,  and  concerning  whom  we  have 
this  honourable  testimony,  L.  >rxiii.  50.  51.  !hat  he  did  not  con- 
cur in  thejr  resolutions. 


464  NOTES  ON  ch.  xii, 

56.  What  think  ye  ?  Will  he  not  come  to  the  festival?  T/  ^o~' 
Kit  uu,tVy  oTi  H  (/^nj  tX67j  £<5  r>)v  iopr7\)i  ;  E.  T.  What  think  ye^  that  he 
loill  not  come  to  the  feast?  This  looks  as  If  they  knew,  or  took  for 
granted,  that  he  would  not  come,  and  were  inquiring  only  about 
the  reason  of  his  not  coming.  This  Is  not  the  meaning  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, whose  words,  in  the  judgment  of  the  best  critics,  make 
properly  two  questions,  and  ought  to  be  pointed  thus — T<  ^okh 


CHAPTER  XII. 

7.  Let  her  alone.    She  hath  reserved  this -Ape^  avrtiv 

reryi^ijKiv  avro.  Five  MSS.  read  tint,  nj^tje-tj.  The  Vul.  in  confor- 
mity to  this,  Sinite  ilium  ut  servet  illud.  With  this,  agree  also, 
the  Sax.  Cop.  and  Eth.  versions,  and  the  paraphrase  of  Nonnus. 
But  when  the  common  reading  makes  a  clear  sense,  which  suits 
the  context,  the  authorities  just  now  mentioned  are  by  no  means 
a  sufficient  reason  for  changing. 

^  To  embalm  me.     Ch.  xix.  40.  N. 

10.  Determined^  e'^a^.tvTavra.  E.  T.  Consulted.  I  agree  en- 
tirely with  Gro.  who  observes,  on  this  place,  " /3«A£j/£o-^«<  non 
"  est  hie  consultare,  sed  constituere,  ut  Act.  v.  33.  xv.  37.  2 
*'  Cor.  i.  17."  It  is  translated  by  Beau,  avoient  resolu,  which 
is  literally  rendered  by  the  Eng.  An.  had  resolved.  Indeed, 
such  a  design  on  the  life  of  a  man  whom  they  do  not  soem  to  have 
charged  with  any  guilt,  might  appear  improbable  ;  but  the  maxim 
of  Caiaphas  above  explained,  ch.  xi.  49.  ~  N.  would  serve,  with 
judges  disposed  as  those  priests  then  were,  to  justify  this  mur- 
der also. 

1 1.  Many  Jezcs  forsook  them,  and  believed  on  Jcsi/s,  5rsM«< 
uTTiiyov  ruv  la^uicov  «^  eTrircjev  eig  rev  V/ithv,  E.  T.  Ma)7y  of  the  Jcics 
zcent  atcay,  and  believed  on  Jesus.  This  interpretation  is  ra- 
ther feeble,  The  Eng.  word  icent,  and  even  the  words  went 
(iteay,  before  the  mention  of  something  done,  are  often  little 
more  than  expletives.  Here  the  word  uTrrr/ov  bears  a  very  impor- 
tant sense,  and  denotes  their  ceasing  to  pay  that  regard  to  the 
teq.ching  of  the  scribes  which  they  had  formerly  done.     This  i<i 


CH.  XII.  S.  JOHN.  465 

universally  acknowledged  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  verb  in  this 
passage.  Bishop  Pearce,  however,  has  gone  too  far,  in  the  op- 
posite extreme,  from  our  translators,  where  he  says,  "  wi/hdrezc 
Ihemselves^  i.  e.  from  the  public  service  in  the  synagogues." 
The  ideas  formed  from  the  practice  of  modern  sectaries  have  led 
him,  in  this  iusfanco,  into  a  mistake.  No  sect  of  the  Jews  with- 
drew from  the  synagogue.  Jesus,  far  from  withdrawing,  or  en- 
couraging his  disciples  to  withdraw,  attended  the  service  in  the 
templeat  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  synagogue,  wherever  he  happen- 
ed to  be.  He  promoted  the  same  disposition  in  his  disciples,  by 
precept,  as  well  as  by  example,  and  particularly  warned  them 
against  disregarding  the  ministry,  on  account  of  the  vices  of  the 
minister.  Mt.  xxiii.  1,  kc.  The  same  conduct  \^as  observed  by 
his  Apostles  and  disciples  after  him.  He  foretold  them,  that 
they  would  be  expelled  the  synagogue,  ch.  xvi.  2.  but  never  gave 
them  permission  to  leave  it,  whilst  they  were  allowed  by  the 
.Tewish  rulers  to  attend  it.  The  book  of  Acts  shovvs,  that  they 
did  in  fact  attend  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath,  where  there  wa? 
a  synagogue  to  which  they  had  access.   Diss.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

13.  Israelis  King.  Though  we  find  in  the  common  copies,  o 
fiutrtXivi  ra  l<rpcci!>i.,  the  article  o  is  wanting  in  so  great  a  number  of 
MSS.  and  editions,  as  to  give  just  ground  for  rejecting  it.  For 
which  reason,  though  the  difference  is  pf  little  moment,  I  have 
made  use  of  this  expression.     Ch.  x.  36.   ^  N. 

16.  Afler  Jesus  was  glorified  ;  that  is,  after  his  resurrection 
and  ascension. 

17.  That  he  called  Lazarus — on  nv  A»(^ci^ov  ei^<wvj;(7£v— Vul, 
Quando  Lazarum  vocavit.  So  many  MSS.  read  irs  for  oV/,  and 
so  many  versions  are  conformable  to  this  reading,  that  it  is  hard- 
ly possible  to  decide  between  them.  The  sense  is  good  and  ap. 
posite  either  way.  But,  in  such  cases,  it  is  better  to  let  things 
remain  as  they  are. 

19.  Ye  have  no  influence.,  hk  axpiXeire  ahv.  Vul.  Nihil profl- 
cimus,  from  the  reading  ^^eASjCttv,  which  has  hardly  any  support 
from  MSS.  or  versions. 

26.  If  any  man  serve  me.,  my  Father  will  reward  him.,  exv  tic, 
sftei  J'<«)c«v}},  rif^-^G-si  ctvrov  o  TTctrijo.  E,  T.  ff  any  man  serve  me, 
him  my  Father  will  honour.  The  w  ord  tiim).,  in  Scripture,  si"-, 
pifies  not  only  honour.,  but  reward,  price,  wages.     The  verb 


466  NOTES  ON  ch.  xn. 

■rtf^xii)  admits  the  same  latitude  of  signification.  Beau.  thou<^h 
he  renders  the  Avord,  in  his  version,  in  the  common  way,  le  ho. 
norera,  says,  in  his  note  upon  it,  "  autrement  le  recompense- 
"  r«."  Nay,  he  adds  in  effect,  that  it  ought  to  be  thus  render- 
ed here,  as  it  is  opposed  to  serving.  "  Comme  honorer  est  ici 
"  oppose  a  servir,  il  signifie  proprement  recoinpenser,  ainsi 
''  qu'en  plusieurs  autres  endroits  de  I'ecriture." 

27.  What  shall  I  say  ?  \^Shall  I  say']  Father,  save  me  from 
this  hour?  But  1  came  on  purpose  for  this  hour — Ttuyru;  w«- 
rt-^,  a-ac-ov  (4.1  ix.  ts;;  upx<;  rojuT^fj,  aAAflS  hoe,  tuto  jjA^ev  a?  rra  u^xv  Tecrtiv. 
E.  T.  fVhat  shall  I  say?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour:  but 
for  this  cause  came  I  unto  this  hour.  I  understand  the  question 
here,  as  ending,  not  at  uttoj,  but  at  rxvrrA,  at  which  there  should 
be  a  point  of  interrogation  ;  or,  rather  that  the  words  should  be 
considered  as  two  questions,  in  the  manner  done  in  this  version. 
A  similar  example  we  have  in  the  preceding  chapter,  verse  56th  ; 
for,  in  both,  a  part  of  the  first  question  is  understood  as  repeat- 
ed.     There  r<  eoxsi  Ift-iv  •   ^okh  'on  a  ftjj  e>jStj ;   Here,  ri  siyra  ; 

£<:r»,  TTxriip   G-aa-ov  /m,£ ;    I   do  not  approve,   with   Markland 

(Bowyer's  Conjectures),  that  rt  should  be  rendered  whether,  and 

the  question  made,  "  Whether  shall  I  say.  Father,  save  me  ? 

"  or,  Father,  glorify  thy  name  ?"  If  these  could  be  supposed  to 
occur  to  the  mind  at  once,  there  could  not  be  a  moment's  hesita- 
tion about  the  preference.  It  suits  much  better  the  distress  of 
his  soul,  to  suggest,  at  first,  a  petition  for  deliverance.  But  in 
this  he  is  instantly  checked  by  the  reflection  on  the  end  of  his 
coming.  This  determines  him  to  cry  out,  "  Father,  glorify  thy 
name."  This  is  not  put  as  a  question.  It  is  what  his  mind  finally 
and  fully  acquiesces  in. 

28.  Thy  name,  o-a  to  ovof^u..  For  to  ovofA^u,,  four  MSS.  not  of 
the  highest  account,  read  rov  uiov.  Such  also  is  the  reading  of 
the  Cop.  Eth.  and  Ara.  versions.  The  second  Sy.  has  it  in  the 
margin. 

32.  All  men — -prxvrcti — .  Vul.  Omnia —  Agreeably  to  this, 
the  Go.  and  the  Sax.  versions  translate-  The  Cam.  and  one 
other  MS.  read  w«vtcs. 

34.  From  the  law  ;  that  is,  from  the  Scriptures.  Ch.  x.  34.  N. 

36.  He  zsithdrew  himself  privately  from  them,  xTViXiav  eitpvS}} 
«t'  avrm.     E.  T.   Departed  and  did  hide  himself  from  them. 


CH.  XII.  S.  JOHN.  467 

This,  in  my  apprehension,  conveys  a  sense  different  from  that  of 
the  original,  which  denotes  simply,  that,  in  retiring,  he  took  care 
not  to  be  observed  by  them.  The  Sy.  version  is  very  close,  and 
appears  to  me  to  imply  no  more.  The  Vul.  which  says,  ahiit  et 
abscondit  se  ah  eis^  seems  to  have  misled  most  of  the  modern 
interpreters.  Cas.  has  hit  the  meaning  better.  Discessit  et  eis 
sese  subduxit. 

40.  Blunted  their  understanding^  wivu^uKtv  ttdi  uvtuv  xa^oiav. 
Diss.  IV.  §  22,  23,  24. 

42.  Several,  5roM9<.  E.  T.  Mamj.  The  Gr.  word  is  of  greater 
latitude  than  the  Eng.  and  answers  more  exactly  to  the  Fr. 
plusieurs,  which,  by  translators  from  that  language,  is  some- 
times rendered  many,  sometimes  several,  as  suits  best  the  sub. 
ject.  Here,  as  it  is  only  the  minority  of  those  in  the  highest 
offices  that  are  spoken  of,  a  minority  greatly  outnumbered  by  the 
opposite  party,  they  can  hardly  be  supposed  very  numerous. 

44.  He  zcho  belicvcth  on  me,  it  is  not  on  me  he  believeth  ;  that 
is,  not  only  on  me.  The  expression  is  similar  to  that  in  Mr.  ix. 
37.  Whosoever  shall  receive  me,  recciveth  not  me.  Both  are 
explained  in  the  same  manner. 

47.  But  do  not  observe  them,  km  y.n  -Trt^ivnu  A  considerable 
number  of  MSS.  amongst  which  are  the  Al.  and  the  Cam.  read 
^vy.ct^^  ;  to  which  agree  not  only  the  Vul,  which  says,  et  non  cus- 
todierit,  but  both  the  Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  Ara.  and  Sax.  ver- 
sions, together  with  the  paraphrase  of  Nonnus  : 

Ko»  uj}  ctirv>i>iToio  van  c-:ppyiyt6u  ^vXa^^v- 
49.  What  I  should  enjoin,  and  what  I  should  teach,  n  citu 
%a.i  ri  XaX-otu.  E.  T.  What  I  should  say,  and  what  1  should 
speak.  These  phrases  convey  to  us  no  conceivable  difference  of 
meaning.  If  no  difference  of  signification  had  been  intended  by 
the  words  of  the  original,  the  rt  would  not  have  been  repeated 
before  the  second  verb.  The  repetition  evidently  implies,  that 
^.the  subject  of  the  one  is  not  the  subject  of  the  other.  E(5r«v  fre- 
quently means  to  command,  to  enjoin,  and  a«Aj<v  to  teach,  to  in- 
struct by  discourse.  When  these  are  thus  conjoined,  as  things 
related,  but  not  synonymous,  they  serve  to  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing of  each  other  ;  the  former  regarding  the  precepts  of  his  reli- 
gion, the  latter  its  principle";. 


46«  NOTES  ON 


CH.  Xlll. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

2.  JVhile  they  zcere  at  supper^  ^uwa  yevoy^iva.  E.  T.  Supper 
being  ended.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Ccena facta.  Be.  Peracta.  Cas. 
Piwatd.  The  two  first  ways  of  rendering  the  words  in  La,  ox- 
press  too  much  ;  the  last,  too  little.  That  supper  was  ended.,  is 
itioousistent  with  what  follows  in  the  chapter  ;  and  if  it  was  only 
prepared.^  it  would  not  have  been  said,  verse  4th,  he  arose  from 
supper.  Maldonat's  solution  hardly  requires  refutation.  He 
affirms,  that  our  Lord  that  night  ate  three  suppers  with  his  dis- 
ciples ;  the  paschal  supper,  their  ordinary  supper,  and  thecucha- 
rislical  supper  ;  if  this  last  might  be  called  a  supper.  Hence, 
we  find  them  still  eating  together,  after  we  had  been  told,  that 
supper  tens  ended.  In  defence  of  the  way  wherein  the  words  are 
rendered  in  the  Vul.  he  argues  thus  :  The  Evangelist  says,  not 
^etTTva  ytvo/n.evay  cum  ccenajicret.,  using  the  present  participle,  but 
yfvs^xevy,  cum  ccena  jam  facta  essety  using  the  participle  of  the 
aorist.  To  this,  it  sufficeth  to  reply,  that  the  sacred  writers  use 
the  participle  yev«^£v»  indiscriminately,  for  both  purposes,  but 
much  oftener  to  express  the  present,  or  rather  the  imperfect,  than 
the  past.  Thus,  when  ysvo,M,£v;}5  is  joined  with  ttsoxok;,  o-v/^/jj?,  vf^spxi, 
or  an}'  term  denoting  a  precise  portion  of  time,  it  invariably  sig- 
nifies that  the  period  denoted  by  the  noun  Avas  begun,  not  ended. 
Mr.  says,  vi.  2.  yevajaevu  trtxSQxra  vi^^xto  £v  rn  rwotyuyyi  hSu.Tx.iiv.  I 
should  be  glad  to  know  of  a  single  interpreter  who  renders  these 
■words — When  Sabbath  was  ended.,  he  taught  in  the  si/nagogue. 
The  words  sabbato facto,  in  the  Vul.  denote  no  more  here,  in  the 
judgment  of  all  expositors,  than  when  Sabbath  was  come.  Our 
Lord  says,  Mt.  xiii.  21.  yeWjttEV-^s  .S-Mi^sai  Stu  tov  P^eyov,  evCvg  o-kwi^ 
^«A(^er«».  Is  it  whilst  the  persecution  rages,  or  when  it  is  over, 
that  men  are  tempted  by  it  to  apostatize  ?  I  shall  add  but  one  M. 
other  example,  from  Mt.  xxvi.  6,  &c.  lyi^a  yi^ouL-MH  a  BtiSxvtx  a 
owicc  S</K.i!yvo5  7r§oir>:X6iv  ccvru  yvvn.  x.  r.  e.  Was  it  after  Jesus  had 
been  in  Simon's  house  in  Bethany,  that  the  woman  anoii;ted  him 
with  the  precious  balsam,  or  when  he  was  there  ?  The  Vul.  says 
expressly,  cutn  Jesus  esset  in  domo  Simonis.  I  should  not  have 
brought  so  many  examples  in  so  clear  a  case,  were  it  not  to 


CM.  Kill.  S.  JOHN.  469 

demonstrate,  what  even  critics  can  forget,  how  unsafe  it  is  to  de- 
pend on  general  rules,  without  recurring  to  use,  wherever  the 
recourse  is  practicable. 

4.  Mantle,  i>^ocrtct,  E.  T.  Gannents.  'I^«t(ov  properly  sig- 
nifies the  upper  garment,  the  mantle  ;  and  \u.xTia,,  garments,  or 
clothes  in  general.  Diss.  VIII.  P.  HI.  M,  2,  3.  Yet  the  plu- 
ral is  sometimes  used  for  the  singular,  and  means  no  more  than 
mantle,  as  Mt.  xxiv.  18.  xxvi.  65.  xxvii.  35.  ch.  xix.  23. 

10.  He  zpho  hath  been  bathing,  needeth  only  to  zaash  hisfevt, 
0  A£Aji,-4ev«5  a  z?^">^^  ^yJ'  "  '■**«  '^*^'='5  ^'4"*~-^^'-  For  the  distinction 
between  Xaav  and  viTrre^^cci,  see  ch.  ix.  7.  N.  This  illustration 
is  borrowed  from  the  custom  of  the  times  ;  according  to  which, 
those  who  had  been  invited  to  a  feast,  bathed  themselves  before 
they  went ;  but,  as  they  walked  commonly  in  sandals,  (unless 
when  on  a  journey),  and  wore  no  stockings,  it  was  usual  to  get 
their  feet  washed  by  the  servants  of  the  family,  before  they  laid 
themselves  on  the  couches.  Their  feet,  which  would  be  soiled 
by  walking,  required  cleaning,  though  the  rest  of  their  body  did 
not.  The  great  utility,  and  frequent  need,  of  washing  the  feet  in 
those  countries,  has  occasioned  its  being  so  often  mentioned  in 
the  N.  T.  as  an  evidence  of  humility,  hospitality,  and  brother- 
ly love. 

13.  Ye  call  me  The  teacher  and  The  master,  'T^cf/?  (pcontre  f^s 
'O  di^ttTKxX^i  Koti  'o  y.vpt6i.  E.  T.  Ye  call  me  master  and  lord. 
The  article  in  Gr.  prefixed  io  each  appellation,  and  the  nomina- 
tive case  employed  where,  in  common  language,  it  would  have 
been  the  accusative,  give  great  energy  to  the  expression,  and 
show,  that  the  words  are  applied  to  Jesus  in  a  sense  entirely  pe- 
culiar. This  is  not  at  all  expressed  by  the  words,  ye  call  me 
master  and  lord,  as  though  it  had  been  (pmnre  y.z  h^ccncxMv  kxi 
y.vpioi ;  for  so  common  civility  might  have  led  them  to  call  fifty 
others.  But  the  titles  here  given,  can  belong  only  to  one.  This 
remark  extends  equally  to  the  following  verse.  For  the  import 
of  the  titles,  see  Diss.  VII. 

23.  fVas  lying  close  to  his  breast.    Diss.  VIII.  P.  HI-  §  3 — 6, 

33.  My  children,  Tenviu.  E.  T.  Little  children.  Diminu- 
tives  answer  a  double  purpose.  They  express  either  the  little, 
ness  ov  fewness,  in  respect  of  size  and  number,  of  that  to  which 
they  are  applied,  or  the  affection  of  the  speaker.    Diss.  XII,  P. 

TOL.  IV.  59 


470  NOTES  ON  ch.  xit. 

I.  §  19.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  it  is  for  the  last  of  these 
purposes  that  the  diminutive  is  used  here.  In  Gr.  when  the  first 
is  only,  or  chielly,  intended,  the  word  answering  to  little  chil- 
dren is  z-ui$tx,  or  TraiSupim^  not  rucviei.  With  us,  the  possessive 
pronoun  answers  better  the  purpose  of  expressing  tenderness,  for 
we  have  few  diminutives. 

34.  Anezi)  commundment.  In  popular  language,  to  which  the 
manner  of  the  sacred  writers  is  very  much  adapted,  that  may  be 
called  a  new  law  which  revives  an  old  law  that  had  been  in  a 
manner  abrogated  by  universal  disuse.  Our  Lord,  by  this,  warns 
his  disciples  against  taking  for  their  model,  any  example  of  affec- 
tion wherewith  the  age  could  furnish  them;  or,  indeed,  any  ex- 
ample less  than  the  love  which  he  all  along,  but  especially  in  his 
deathj  manifested  for  them. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

1.  Believe  on  God,  and  believe  on  me,  inviven  e/5  t«v  ©£«v,  kch 
''ig  tfiLs  7ri?-£veTe.  E.  T.  Ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  me. 
The  Gr.  expression  is  ambiguous,  and  is  capable  of  being  ren- 
dered different  ways.  The  Vul.  which  has  had  great  influence 
on  the  translators  in  the  West,  has  preferred  the  latter  method, 
creditis  in  Deum  et  in  me  credite  ;  and,  in  respect  of  the  sense, 
is  followed  by  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  and  Be.  The  Sy.  has,  on  the  con- 
trary, preferred  the  former,  which  seems  to  be  more  generally 
adopted  in  the  East.  It  was  so  understood  also  by  Nonnus,  who 
thus  expresses  the  sense:  Aaa«  ©£<y  x«<  e/iMi  Trii-evc-xre.  This  is 
the  sense  which  the  Gr.  commentators  also  put  upon  the  word  ; 
und,  in  this  way,  Luther  interprets  them.  They  are  so  rendered 
into  Eng.  by  Dod.  Wes.  and  Wor.  The  reasons  of  the  prefer- 
ence I  have  given  to  this  manner,  are  the  following:  1st,  In  a 
point  which  depends  entirely  on  the  Gr.  idiom,  great  deference 
is  due  to  the  judgment  of  those  whose  native  language  was  Gr. 
The  consent  of  Gr.  commentators,  in  a  question  of  this  kind,  is, 
therefore,  of  great  weight.  2dly,  The  two  clauses  are  so  simi- 
larly expressed  and  linked  together  by  the  copulative,  that  it  is, 
I  suspect,  unprecedented  to  make  the  verb,  in  one  an  indicative, 
and  the  same  verb,  repeated  in  the  other,  an  imperative.  The 
simple  and  natural  way  is.  to  render  similarly  what  is  similarly 


CH.XIV.  S.JOHN.  471 

expressed;  nor  ought  this  rule  ever  to  be  departed  from,  unless 
something  absurd  or  incongruous  should  follow  from  the  obser- 
vance of  it.  This  is  so  far  from  being  the  case  here,  that  I  re- 
mark, 3dly,  That,  by  rendering  both  in  the  imperative,  the  sense 
is  not  only  good,  but  apposite.  How  frequently,  in  the  book  of 
Psalms,  are  the  people  of  God,  in  the  time  of  affliction,  exhorted 
to  trust  in  the  Lord  ?  Such  exhortations,  therefore,  are  not  un- 
derstood to  imply  a  total  want  of  faith  in  those  to  whom  they 
are  given. 

2. 1  go  to  prepare  aplacefor  j/ou,  Tre^tvefAxt  iroifMca-nt  totfov  uf*.iv. 
Vul.  Quia  vado  par  are  vobis  locum.  The  Al.  Cam.  and  several 
other  MSS.  do,  in  like  manner,  introduce  the  clause  with  on.  The 
Arm.  version  also  agrees  with  the  Vul.  So  does  the  Sax.  Nonnus 
likewise  uses  this  conjunction — on  7r^oK£>^ev6ei  oSevtru.  But  the  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  the  common  reading  greatly  preponderates. 

11.  Believe,  Tnrivere  fMi.  Vul.  Non  creditis.  This  interpre- 
tation has  doubtless  arisen  from  a  different  reading.  For  the  ne- 
gative  particle,  there  is  no  testimony  in  confirmation  of  the  Vul. 
except  the  Sax.  version.  The  Sy.  has  not  read  ^<,  nor  is  it  ne. 
cessary  to  the  sense.  I  have  expressed  the  import  of  this  pro. 
noun,  in  interpreting  the  next  clause — u  ^i  ^^,  if  not  on  mi) 
testimony. 

12  13.  Nay,  even  greater  than  these  he  shall  do,  because  J  go 
to  my  Father,  and  will  do  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name 

X.CU  fJLU^ovoi  rarm  TToiitrr   on  eyu  rrpoi  rov  vxripu  fts  7ropivo/Mi,  xM 

i,  n  ecv  ot,irv)<!"/ire  a  ra  ovo/^xn  (H*f,  tuto  Tromtru.  E.  T.  And  greater 
works  than  these  shall  he  do,  because  I  go  unto  my  Father.  And 
whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  7iame,  that  zdll  I  do.  This  ren. 
dering  is  deficient  both  in  perspicuity  and  in  connection.  Yet, 
except  in  the  pointing,  I  have  made  no  change  on  the  words  of 
the  Evangelist.  Our  Lord's  going  to  his  Father,  considered  by 
itself,  does  not  account  for  their  doing  greater  works  than  he  had 
done ;  but  when  that  is  considered,  along  with  what  immediately 
follows,  that  he  will  then  do  for  them  whatever  they  shall  ask, 
it  accounts  for  it  entirely.  When  the  12th  verse  is  made,  as  in 
the  Eng.  translation,  a  separate  sentence,  there  is  little  connec- 
tion,  as  well  as  light,  in  the  whole  passage.  The  propriety  of 
reading  the  words  in  the  manner  1  have  done,  has  been  justly  ob. 
served  by  Gro.  and  others. 

13,  14,  That  the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son^  what- 


478  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XIV. 


soever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  I  will  do — hx  ^e^xa-B-a  d  Trxrr,^  ev 

rcD  itia.  CXI  ri  xtrtjc-tire  iv  ra  ovofixTt  f^a,  eya  7roit)c-u.  E.  T.  That  the 
Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son.  If  ye  shall  ask  any  thing 
in  my  name,  I  zoill  do  it.  The  latter  part  of  the  13th  verse,  I 
have  detached  from  the  preceding  sentence,  and  joined  into  one 
sentence  with  the  14th  verse.  This  preserves  better  the  simpli- 
city of  construction  in  the  sacred  writings,  and  accounts  for  the 
repetition  in  verse  14th,  of  Mhat  had  been  said  immediately  be- 
fore, almost  in  the  same  words. 

14.  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  I  will  do,  txv  rt 
ttirticrvjTe  ev  ro)  ovof4.xTi  (tty,  eyeo  Trof/irca.  Vul.  Si  quid  petieritis  me 
in  no7ninc  mco.,  hoc  faciam.  The  blunder  in  transcribing  seems 
here  pretty  evident;  yet  it  has  the  support  of  a  few  MSS.  not  of 
principal  account,  and  of  the  Go.  and  Sax.  versions. 

16.  Monitor,  7rxpxK>^ijrov.  E.  T.  Comforter.  In  tl\e  interpre- 
tation of  this  word,  critics  have  been  much  divided  It  is  used 
by  no  other  sacred  writer  ;  neither  does  it  occur  in  the  Sep.  John 
uses  it  in  four  places  of  his  Gospel,  all  in  reference  to  the  same 
person,  and  once  in  his  first  Epistle,  as  shall  be  observed  imme- 
diately. The  Sy.  Vul.  and  some  other  ancient  versions,  retain 
the  original  term.  Most  modern  interpreters  have  thought  it 
better  to  translate  it.  Er.  sometimes  retains  the  word,  and 
sometimes  renders  it  consolator ;  so  does  also  Leo  de  Juda.  Cas. 
says  confirmator,  Be.  advocatus.  Under  the  first  or  last  of  these, 
all  the  translations  into  European  tongues  with  which  I  am  ac. 
quainted,  may  be  ranged.  Lu.  Dio.  G.  F.  Beau.  P.  R.  Sa.  and 
all  the  late  Eng.  versions  but  one  follow  Er.  The  An.  follows 
Be.  Si.  though  he  does  not  render  the  word  avocat,  but  defen- 
seur,  may  be  added  ;  as  he  shows,  in  the  notes,  that  he  means  by 
defenseur,  what  other  interpreters  meant  by  avocat ;  and  for  the 
same  reason  L.  Cl.  who  also  renders  the  word  defenseur.  Ham, 
has  well  observed  on  the  passage,  that  the  word  is  susceptible  of 
these  three  significations,  advocate,  exhorter,  and  comforter.  If, 
instead  of  exhorter,  he  had  said  monitor,  I  should  readily  admit 
that  these  three  terms  comprehend  all  that  is  ever  implied  in  the 
original  word.  But  the  word  exhorter  is  of  very  limited  import, 
barely  denoting  one  who  by  argument  incites  another  to  perform 
something  to  which  he  is  reluctant;  foi  exhortation  always  pre- 
supposes some  degree  of  reluctance  in  the  person  exhorted,  with- 


CH.  XI?.  S.  JOHN.  473 

out  which  it  would  be  unnecessary.    The  term  monitor  includes 
what  is  most  essential  in  the  import  of  exhorfer,  as  well  as  that 
of  7'emembrancer  and  instriicter^  and  comes  nearer  in  extent 
than  any  one  word,  in  our  language,  to  the  original  term.     I 
own  that  the  word  in  classical  authors  more  commonly  answers 
to  the  La.  advocatus.     But  the  Eng.  word  advocate  is  more  con- 
fined, and  means  one  who,  in  (he  absence  of  his  client,  is  in- 
structed to  plead  his  cause  before  his  judge,  and  to  defend  him 
against  his  accuser.     In  this  sense  our  Lord  is  called  tto^xxX^toi;, 
1  J.  ii.  I.  which  is  in  the  E.  T.  properly  rendered  advocate.     Jf 
any  man  sin,  zee  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ 
the  righteous.     We  have  one  who,  in  our  absence,  appears  for 
us,  and  defends  our  cause,  before  our  judge.     The  notion  of  an 
advocate  brings,  along  with  it,  the  notion  of  a  judge  who  is  to 
pass  sentence,  and  of  a  client  who  is  to  be  defended.   But,  if  any 
regard  is  due  to  the  scope  of  the  place,  the  word  advocate  is 
very  improperly  introduced,  in  the  passage  under  examination, 
where  there  is  nothing  that  suggests  the  idea  of  judge,  cause,  or 
party.   The  advocate  exercises  his  office  in  presence  of  the  judge. 
Whether  the  client  be  there  or  not,  is  of  no  consequence,  as  he 
is  represented  by  his  advocate.     Now  this  Tci^cix.Mfoi,  who,  we 
are  told,  verse  26th,  is  The  Holy  Spirit,  was  to  be  sent  to  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  to  remain  with  them  for  ever.     If  the  word 
here  then  denote  advocate,  and  if  the  Holy  Spirit  be  that  advo. 
cate,  are  the  disciples,  to  whom  he  is  sent,  the  judges?  If  not, 
who  is  the  judge  ?  what  is  the  cause  to  be  pleaded  ?  and  who 
are  the  parties  ?  This  interpretation  introduces  nothing  but  con- 
fusion and  darkness.  The  only  plea  in  its  favour,  which  has  any 
thing  specious  in  it,  is  that,  by  the  wisdom  and  eloquence  with 
which  the  Spirit  endowed  the  Apostles,  and  first  Christian  preach- 
ers, he  powerfully  defended  the  cause  of  Christ  before  the  world  : 
but  as  those  first  teachers  themselves  were  made  the  instruments 
or  immediate  agents  of  the  victory  obtained  to  the  Christian 
cause,  over  the  infidelity  of  both  Jews  and  Pagans,  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  to  them  much  more  properly  a  monitor  or  prompter, 
than  an  advocate.  He  did  not  appear  openly  to  the  world,  which, 
as  our  Lord  says,  verse  17.  neither  seeth  him  nor  knozteth  him  ; 
but,  by  his  secret  instructions,  they  were  qualified  to  plead  with 
success  the  cause  of  Christianity.     Let  it  be  observed  further, 
that  our  Lord  says,  that  when  he  himself  is  gone,  his  Father  will 


4f4  NOTES  ON  CH.  XIV. 

sendtliern  another ■x-xpxK>,t}Tei;^  who  will  remain  with  them  forever. 
From  this  we  learn,  1st,  That  our  Lord  himself,  when  he  was 
with  them,  had  discharged  that  office  among  them  ;  and,  2flly, 
That  it  was  to  supply  his  place  in  the  discharge  of  the  same  func- 
tion,  that  the  Hoiy  Spirit  was  to  be  sent.  Now  when  our  Lord 
is  said,  since  his  ascension  into  heaven,  to  be  our  advocate  and 
■intercessor  with  the  Father,  we  perceive  the  beauty  and  energy, 
as  well  as  the  propriety  of  the  representation.  But  we  should 
never  think  of  the  title  advocate  for  expressing  the  functions  he 
discharged  to  his  disciples  when  he  sojourned  among  them  upon 
the  earth.  We  should  readily  say  that  to  them  he  acted  the  part 
of  a  tutor,  a  father,  a  monitor,  a  guide,  a  comforter;  but  nobody 
"would  say  that  he  acted  to  them  as  an  advocate.  I  have  been  the 
more  particular  here  for  the  sake  of  showing  that  it  is  not 
without  reason,  that  Be.  has,  in  this,  been  so  generally  deserted, 
even  by  those  Protestant  interpreters  who,  on  other  occasions^ 
have  paid  but  too  implicit  a  deference  to  his  judgment.  Is  com- 
forter  then  the  proper  term  ?  Comforter^  I  admit,  is  prefera])le. 
But  this  appellation  is  far  from  reaching  the  import  of  the  ori- 
ginal. Our  Saviour,  when  there  was  occasion,  as  at  this  time  in 
particular,  acted  the  part  of  a  coinjorter  to  his  disciples.  But 
this  part  is,  in  its  nature,  merely  occasional,  for  a  time  of  afflic- 
tion ;  whereas  that  of  monitor^  instructer^  or  guide^  is,  to  im- 
perfect creatures  like  us,  always  needful  and  important.  Were 
we,  in  one  word,  to  express  the  part  acted  by  our  Lord  to  his 
followers,  we  should  certainly  adopt  any  of  the  three  last  ex. 
pressions  rather  than  the  first.  Or  if  we  consider  what  is  here 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit,  as  the  part  he  is  to  act  among  the  disci- 
ples, it  will  lead  us  to  the  same  interpretation.  The  Holi/  Spi- 
rit, says  our  Lord,  verse  26.  whom  the  Father  zsill  send  in  my 
name  ;  he  zvill  teach  you  all  things,  and  remind  you  of  all  that 
I  have  told  you.  Is  not  this  to  say,  in  other  words,  "  He  will 
*■'  be  to  you  a  faithful  monitor  ?"  Further,  the  conjugates  of  the 
word  7ra/)«x/j)Ta5  entirely  suit  this  interpretation.  The  general 
import  of  7raf«K«t>i£(v,  in  the  active  voice,  is  to  admonish,  to  ex. 
liort,  to  entreat,  and  'xa^a.x.M°'i'i,  admonition,  exhortation.  It  is 
manifest,  as  has  been  justly  remarked  by  Dr.  Ham.  that  in  some 
places  the  import  of  the  noun  has  been  unduly  limited,  by  being 
rendered  comfort  or  consolation  ;  particularly  that  ■Tu^aix.x-/is-ii;  ra 
^yia  TVivtcdTci,  Acts,  ix.  31.  is  much  more  properly  rendered  the 


CH.  XIV.  S.  JOHN.  476 

admonition^  than  the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Diss.  VIII. 
P.  III.  §  8. 

^  It  is  perhaps  hardly  worth  remarking,  that  the  Mahometans 
pretend  that  the  coming  of  their  prophet  is  here  predicted.  The 
Evangelist,  say  they,  did  not  yn'xie  7roi,poi,KXr,r(^  paraclctos^'bxxt 
■Te^tnXvT(^  periclytos ,  that  is  illustrious^  which  is  the  import  of 
the  name  Mahomet  in  Arabic.  But  whence  had  they  this  infor- 
mation ?  The  Gospel  of  John  was  well  known  throughout  the 
church,  for  several  centuries  before  the  appearance  of  Mahomet; 
whereas  the  reading  alleged  by  them,  had  never  before  been  heard 
of;  nor  has  it  been  discovered  ever  since  in  any  one  MS.  ancient 
translation,  commentary,  or  ecclesiastical  writing  of  any  kind. 

18.  /  will  not  leave  you  orphans^  hk  ct(:p>]a-u  y^*?  op^xvm;.  E.  T. 
/  will  not  leave  you  comfortless.  I  cannot  imagine  what  could 
have  led  our  translators  into  the  singularity  of  deserting  the 
common  road,  where  it  is  so  patent ;  unless,  by  introducing 
comfortless.,  they  have  thought  that  they  gave  some  support  to 
their  rendering  the  word  Trxpax-Xiiroi  in  the  context,  comforter. 

19.  Because  I  shall  live;  that  is,  return  to  life.  A  great 
part  of  this  discourse  must  have  been  dark  at  the  time  it  was 
spoken;  but  the  event  explained  it  afterwards. 

22.  Wherefore  wilt  thou  discover  thyself  to  us?  rt  ycyoviv  oti 
;jV'v  f^eX?iii<;  eft/pdvK^eiv  trtctvrat,  E.  T.  How  is  it  that  thoii  icilt  ma. 
nifest  thyself  unto  us?  The  expression  How  is  it  that  is  ambigu- 
ous, and  may  be  an  inquiry  about  the  manner  of  his  discovering 
himself  to  them.  The  words  of  (he  Evangelist  can  be  interpret- 
ed only  as  an  inquiry  into  the  reason  of  his  discovering  himself 
to  them,  and  not  to  the  world.  This  question  arose  from  the 
remains  of  national  prejudices  in  regard  to  the  Messiah,  to  which 
the  Apostles  themselves  were  not,  till  after  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit,  related  in  the  2d  chapter  of  the  Acts,  entirely  superior. 
Our  Lord's  answer,  in  the  two  following  verses,  though,  in  all 
probability,  not  perfectly  understood  by  them  at  the  time,  as- 
signs a  reason  for  the  distinction  he  would  make  between  his 
disciples  and  the  world,  but  says  nothing  about  the  manner  of 
discovering  himself. 

24.  Is  not  mine,  but  the  Father's;  that  is  (setting  aside  th€i 
idiom),  is  not  so  much  mine  as  the  Father's.  Mt.  ix.  13,  Mr., 
ix.  37 


476  NOTES  ON 


CU.  XT. 


28.  Ye  would  rejoice  that  I  go  (o  the  Father,  tx<ipnT£  av  ori 
eiTTev,  'xopevafi.xt  Tr^oi  t«v  ■tccts^x.  E.  T.  Ve  zoould  rejoice^  because 
1  said,  I  go  unto  the  Father.  The  word  uttov  is  not  in  the  Al. 
MS.  nor  in  the  Cam.  It  is  wanting  also  in  several  others.  There 
is  nothing  which  answers  to  it  in  either  of  the  Sy.  versions,  or  in 
the  Vul.  Goth.  Sax.  Cop.  Arm.  Eth.  or  Ara.  Origen,  Cyril, 
Chr.  seem  not  to  have  read  it.  The  same  may  be  affirmed  of 
Nonnus  the  paraphrast.  Such  a  concurrence  of  all  the  most  an. 
cient  and  most  eminent  translations,  supported  by  some  of  the 
best  MSS.  and  Grecian  critics,  have  induced  me  to  join  with  Mill 
and  Bengelius  in  rejecting  it. 

30.  The  prince  of  the  world,  o  m  koc-ji^h  tuts  etpx^^v.  E.  T. 
The  prince  of  this  icorld.  There  is  such  a  powerful  concur- 
rence of  MSS.  both  those  of  principal  note  and  others,  with  both 
the  Sy.  versions,  some  of  the  most  celebrated  Gr.  commentators, 
together  Avith  Nonnus,  in  rejecting  the  pronoun  rara,  that  not 
only  Mill,  but  Wet.  who  is  much  more  scrupulous,  is  for  ex- 
cluding it. 

^  He  will  find  nothing  in  me,  ev  e^toi  rnc  e^ei  a^ev.  E.T.  Hath 
nothing  in  me.  Though  not  so  great  as  in  either  of  the  instances 
immediately  preceding,  there  is^onsiderable  authority  from  MSS. 
versions,  and  ancient  authors,  for  reading  either  evpio-Ksi  or  ivpti^ 
c-et,  instead  of  sk  e^ei.  For  this  reason,  and  because  it  makes 
the  expression  clearer,  I  think,  with  Mill,  it  ought  to  be  ad- 
mitted. 


■CHAPTER  XV. 

2.  He  cleaneth  by  pruning,  xxSxi^ci.  E.  T.  He  purgeth. 
Critics  have  observed  a  verbal  allusion  or  paronomasia  in  this 
verse.  To  the  barren  branch  the  word  ctt^et  is  applied  ;  to  the 
fruitful,  x,t>:6ix^H.  It  is  not  always  possible  in  a  version,  to  pre- 
serve figures  which  depend  entirely  on  the  sound,  or  on  the  ety- 
mology of  the  words,  though  sometimes  they  are  not  without 
emphasis.  This  verse,  and  the  following,  afford  another,  and 
more  remarkable,  instance  of  the  same  trope.  As  our  Lord  him- 
self is  here  represented  by  the  vine  ;  his  disciples  are  represent- 
ed by  the  branches.  The  mention  of  the  method  which  the  dres- 
ser takes  with  the  fruitful  branches,  in  order  to  render  them 


en.  XV.  S.  JOHN.  477 

more  fruitful,  and  which  he  expresses  by  the  word  xuSuipbi,  leads 
him  to  take  notice  of  the  state  wherein  the  Apostles,  the  princi- 
pal branches,  were  at  that  time,  H^ti  i)ft«?  y.x6»pot  ire.  It  is  hardly 
possible  not  to  consider  the  x-xSai^ei  applied  to  the  branches  as 
giving  occasion  to  this  remark,  which  immediately^  follows  it' 
Now,  when  the  train  of  the  thoughts  arises  in  any  degree  from 
verbal  allusions,  it  is  of  some  consequence  to  preserve  them,  where 
it  can  be  easily  effected,  in  a  translation.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  I  have  translated  the  word  Kxeui^c-t  by  a  circumlocution,  and 
said  cleaneth  by  pruning.  It  is  evident  that  xci6xi§ei,  in  this  ap- 
plication, means  pruneth.  But  to  say  in  Eng.  simp] y  pr unci h, 
would  be  to  throw  away  the  allusion,  and  make  the  thoughts  ap- 
pear more  abrupt  in  the  version  than  they  do  in  the  original ;  and 
to  say  cleaneth^  without  adding  any  explanation,  would  be  ob- 
scure, or  rather  improper.  The  word  used  in  the  E.  T.  does  not 
preserve  the  allusion,  and  is,  besides,  in  this  application,  anti- 
quated. Nonnus  appears  to  have  been  careful  to  preserve  the 
trope  ;  for  though  almost  all  the  other  words  in  the  two  verses 
are  changed,  for  the  sake  of  the  measure,  he  has  retained  kxB-xu 
§$tv  and  )cx6oe,^ot.  Few  translators  appear  to  have  attended  to  this 
allusion :  yet  whatever  strengthens  the  association  in  the  senten- 
ces, serves  to  make  them  both  better  understood,  and  longer  re- 
Hierabered. 

6.  Like  the  withered  branches  which  are  gathered  for  fuel, 

find  burnt^  «5  to  jcA^jjitos,  >^  e^>ipxv3->},  >^  a-vvxyHFtv  xvrx^  «^  «5  ^vp  QxX- 
xnTi,  >^  Koiierui.  E.  T.  As  a  branch,  and  is  zcithered  ;  and  men 
gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned. 
Through  an  excessive  desire  of  tracing  the  letter,  a  plain  senti- 
ment is  here  rendered  indistinctly  and  obscurely.  KnatchbuU's 
observation  is  just.  In  the  idiom  of  the  sacred  writers,  the  co- 
pulative often  supplies  the  place  of  the  relative,  a  branch,  and 
is  withered,  for  a  branch  which  is  withered,  or  a  withered  branch. 
See  Ruth  i.  11.  Many  other  examples  might  be  brought  from 
scripture.  The  singular  number  is  sometimes  used  collectivdyj 
as  branch  for  branches.  This  may  account  for  xvrx  in  the  plu- 
ral. Some  MSS.  indeed,  and  even  some  versions  read  xvtoi  but 
the  difference  does  not  affect  the  sense. 

8.  So  shall  ye  be  my  disciples,  j^  yt)itiTi(rk  e/xoi  /nx^tiTxt.     The 
Gam.  and  several  other  MSS.  have  yarirrB-e  for  yevr.a-eir^c.     Agree, 
VOL.  IV.  60 


478  NOTES  ON  ch.  xt. 

ably  to  which  the  Vul.  says  et  efficiamini  met  discipuU.     With 
this  also  agree  the  Cop.  and  Sax.  versions. 

10.  Ye  shall  continue  in  my  love,  f^Bmrc  a  nj  ocyctTnj  jua.  Dod. 
and  Wor.  Ye  will  continue  in  my  love.  The  precept  continue 
in  my  love,  in  the  preceding  verse,  which  must  determine  the 
meaning  of  this  declaration,  is  capable  of  being  understood  in 
two  ways,  as  denoting  either  continue  to  love  me,  or  continue  to 
be  loved  by  me  ;  in  other  words,  '  keep  your  place  in  my  affec- 
'  tion.'  In  my  opinion  the  latter  is  the  sense,  and  therefore  I 
have  retained  the  old  manner  ye  shall  in  preference  to  ye  will,  as 
the  former  is  frequently  the  sign  of  a  promise,  which  I  take  the 
sentence  to  contain  to  this  elFect :  If  ye  keep  my  commandments, 
ye  shall  continue  the  objects  of  my  love.  For  this  preference,  it 
is  proper  to  assign  my  reasons :  First,  it  is  most  natural  to  sup- 
pose, that  when  our  Lord  enjoined  them  to  continue  in  a  parti, 
cular  state,  it  would  be  in  that  state  wherein  he  had  signified  that 
they  then  were.  Now  this  state  is  manifestly  that  of  being  loved 
by  him ;  of  which  mention  is  made  in  the  words  immediately  pre- 
ceding. As  the  Father  loveth  me,  says  he,  so  I  love  you;  con- 
tinue  in  my  love.  '  Ye  possess  my  love  at  present,  continue  to 
'  possess  it.'  But  here  a  doubting  might  arise  in  their  mindsi 
'  How  shall  we  continue  to  possess  it  ?  or  how  shall  we  know 
'  that  we  continue  to  possess  it?'  To  obviate  all  such  exceptions, 
he  adds,  '  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  continue  to 
'  possess  my  love ;  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  commandments, 
'  and  continue  to  possess  his  love.'  In  the  other  way  explained, 
besides  that  the  connection  is  loose,  the  passage  is  not  so  signifi. 
cant.  '  If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye  will  continue  to  love 
'  me.'  Better,  one  would  think,  '  If  ye  continue  to  love  me,  ye 
'  will  keep  my  commandments ;'  since  that  is  regarded  as  the 
cause,  this  as  the  effect.  Accordingly  a  good  deal  is  said  to  this 
purpose  afterwards. 

11.  That  I  may  continue  to  have  joy  in  you,  Ivx  v  z*P*  ^  ^A«9 
£v  u[Atv  ft«ii«.  E.  T.  That  my  joy  might  remain  in  you.  It  is  to 
be  observed,  that  £v  3}'/m,(»  is  placed  betwixt  ?}*  j(^xpcc  ^  i/^tj,  and  /«.«»)?. 
I  render  it  as  immediately  connected  with  the  words  preceding, 
our  translators  have  rendered  it  as  belonging  to  the  word  which 
follows.  The  former  makes  a  clear  and  apposite  sense,  the  latter 
Is  obscure,  not  to  say  mysterious. 


CH.XT.  S.  JOHN.  479 

16.  It  is  notyouy  wy.  hf*.^i.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  32. 

2  That  the  Father  may  give  you  zvhatsoever  ye  shall  ask  him 

in  my  name,  Ivx  i  rt  uv  xirv<r>,T£  rav  Trccre^ct,  iv  ra  eve^<«T<  f^u,  ^u  If^iv. 

It  is  an  obvious  remark,  that  ^«  is  equivocal,  as  it  applies  equal- 
ly to  the  first  person,  and  to  the  third.  Explained  in  the  first 
person,  it  runs  thus  :  that  1  may  give  you  uhatsoever  ye  shall 
ask  the  Father  in  my  name.  Nonnus  explains  the  words  so  in 
his  Paraphrase;  but  the  Vul.  the  Sy.  and  indeed  the  whole  cur- 
rent  of  interpreters,  have  understood  the  verb  as  in  the  third  per- 
son. This  interpretation  is  also  best  suited  to  the  scope  of  the 
place.  I  have,  therefore,  with  the  other  Eng.  translators,^  adopt. 
ed  it  here. 

18.  It  hated  me  before  it  hated  you,   tf^t  zr^arev  ii^ui  ^eftio-^jxev. 
Vul.  Me  priorem  vobis  odio  habuit.   The  other  La.  interpreters, 
if  not  in  the  same  words,  are  to  the  same  purpose.     So  are  also 
the  Sy.  and  other  Oriental  translations.     The  M.  G.  and  all  the 
other  versions  I  know,  before  the  present  century,  express  the 
same  sense.     Nonnus  has  so  understood  the  words,  who  says 
xfuTov  ef^e  ^vyeea-Ki.  For,  as  he  has  not  prefixed  the  article,  and  has 
suppressed  the  pronoun,  his  words  cannot  be  otherwise  rendered 
than  it  hated  mejirst.  Unless  my  memory  fails  me,  I  may  affirm 
the  same  thing  of  ancient  commentators  as  of  interpreters.    This 
uniformity  of  interpretation,  where  the  subject  is  nowise  ab- 
struse, is  a  strong  presumption  in  its  favour.     Our  Lord  was 
not  discussing  any  sublime  question   of  theology,  but  giving 
plain  admonitions  to  patience  and  constancy,  which,  it  would  be 
strange  to  imagine,  had  been  so  expressed  by  the  Evangelist,  as 
to  be  universally  misunderstood  by  those  expositors  who  spoke 
the  same  language,  who  lived,  I  may  say,  in  the  neighbourhood, 
not  long  after  those  events ;  and  to  be  at  last  discovered  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  by  those  who,  comparatively,  are  strangers 
both  to  the  dialect,  and  to  the  manners,  of  the  age  and  country. 
Yet  Dr.  Lardner,  a  very  respectable  name,  I  acknowledge,  is 
the  first  who  has  defended  a  diiferent  meaning,  a  meaning  which 
had  indeed  been  hinted,  but  not  adopted,  by  Be.  more  than  a  cen- 
tury before.     Lardner  supposes  tt^utov  here  to  be  neither  adjec- 
tive nor  adverb,  but  a  substantive,  of  which  the  proper  interpre- 
tation h  prince  or  chief.  It  is  freely  owned  that  the  sense  which 
results  from  this  rendering  is  both  good  and  apposite,  yet  not 
more  so  than  the  common  version.  Nothing  serves  more  strongly 


480  NOTES  ON  CH.  xv. 

to  fortify  the  soul  with  patience  under  affliction,  than  the  remem- 
brance of  what  those  whom  we  esteem,  underwent  before  us. 
n^(wr^,  as  was  formerl)'  observed,  (ch.  i.  15.  ^  N.)  is  often  used 
substantively  for  chief ;  that  is,  first,  not  in  time,  but  in  excel- 
lence, rank,  or  dignity.  Some  examples  of  this  use  were  given. 
But  it  ought  to  be  remembered,  that  Trpari^^  in  this  application, 
when  it  has  a  regimen,  preserves  the  construction  of  an  adjective 
in  the  superlative  degree.  It  is  commonly  preceded  by  the  arti. 
cle,  and  is  always  followed,  either  by  the  genitive  plural  of  the 
noun  expressing  the  subject  of  comparison,  or,  if  the  noun  be  a 
collective,  by  the  genitive  singular.  In  like  manner,  the  noun 
governed  includes  both  the  thing  compared,  and  the  things  to 
which  it  is  compared.  Thus,  to  say  d  ir^arf^  e^iv  ujnm^  he  is  the 
chief  of  yon^  implies  he  is  one  of  you  ;  oi  t^mtoi  t>j?  rxXtXaica;  can 
be  applied  to  none  but  Galileans,  and  «/  Tr^uTot  rm  laSxim,  to  none 
but  Jews.  He  who  is  called  (Acts,  xxviii.  7.)  a  ■7r^wr(^  rr,c,  y^o-a^ 
must  have  been  one  of  the  islatiders.  If  then,  our  Lord  had  said 
f^£  rav  -x-ptaTcv  jjjtcwv  i^i(*.i<rvjKtv ,  I  should  admit  the  interpretation  to 
be  plausible,  as  the  construction  is  regular,  and  he  himself  is  in- 
cluded in  the  jjV^^c  ;  but  the  words  which  the  Evangelist  repre- 
sents  him  as  having  used,  no  more  express  this  in  Gr.  than  the 
words  Jesus  zoas  the  greatest  of  the  apostles^  would  express. in 
Eng.  that  he  was  no  apostle,  but  the  Lord  and  Master  of  the 
apostles.  When  Paul  calls  himself  (1  Tim.  i,  15.)  7rpar(^  kfjux.g~ 
raiXav,  chief  of  sinners,  is  he  not  understood  by  every  body  as 
calling  himself  a  sinner  ?  The  chief  of  the  Levites  (Num.  iii  32.) 
ivas  certainly  a  Levite,  and  the  chief  of  the  singers  (Neh.  xii. 
46.)  was  a  singer.  But  are  there  no  exceptions  from  this  rule  ? 
I  acknowledge  that  there  is  hardly  a  rule  in  grammar  which  is 
not,  through  negligence,  sometimes  transgressed,  even  by  good 
writers :  and  if  any  think  that  such  oversights  are  to  be  deemed 
exceptions,  I  will  not  dispute  about  the  word.  Only,  in  regard 
to  such  exceptions,  it  will  be  admitted  a  good  rule  for  the  ex. 
pounder,  never  to  suppose  a  violation  of  syntax,  when  the  words, 
construed  in  a  different  manner,  appear  regular,  and  yield  an  ap- 
posite meaning.  This  I  take  to  be  the  case  in  the  present  instance. 
That  there  are  examples  of  such  inaccuracy  in  the  use  of  super- 
latives, perhaps  in  all  languages,  can  hardly  be  denied.  Of  this 
I  take  that  quoted  from  2  Mac.  vii.  41.  to  be  a  flagrant  example; 


CH.  XV.  S.  JOHN.  481 

iir^eiTij  Tm  viav  7}  ;M.;jTij9  eTeXivr^B-e^  which  is  literally,  the  mother 
died  last  of  the  sons.     This  is  of  a  piece  with  that  of  our  poet : 

Adam  the  comeliest  man  of  men  since  born 
His  sons,  tlie  fairest  of  her  daugiiters  Eve. 

For  my  part,  I  think  it  much  better,  in  criticising,  to  acknow- 
ledge these  to  be  slips  in  writing,  than  to  account  for  them  by 
such  supposed  enallages,  and  unnatural  ellipses  as  totally  sub- 
vert the  authority  of  Syntax,  and  leave  every  thing  in  language 
vague  and  indeterminate.  The  ellipsis  of  a  preposition  suggest. 
ed  in  the  present  case  is  merely  hypothetical  ;  for  no  examples 
are  produced  to  show,  either  that  tt^ut©^  has  the  meaning  ascrib- 
ed to  it,  when  accompanied  with  any  of  the  prepositions  5|,  tt^o, 
Ti^i,  or  cTTt,  supposed  to  have  been  dropped  ;  or  that  it  has  the 
meaning  without  a  preposition,  when  the  supposed  ellipsis  takes 
place.  Yet  both  of  these,  especially  the  latter,  appear  to  be 
necessary  for  removing  doubt.  The  only  thing  that  looks  like 
an  example  of  the  superlative  ^^^r©^,  with  an  exclusive  regimen. 
is  that  expression  Mt.  xx\i.  17.  rtj  Trptury,  rm  cc^vf^m,  spoken  of 
the  day  of  the  passover,  which  was  the  fourteenth  of  the  month  ; 
though  in  strictness,  the  fifteenth  was  the  first  of  the  days  of  un- 
leavened bread.  But  for  this  Dr.  Lardner  himself  has  sufficiently 
accounted,  by  showing  that  these  two  successive  festivals,  though 
distinct  in  themselves,  are  often,  in  the  Jewish  idiom,  confound- 
ed as  one,  and  that  both  by  the  sacred  writers  and  by  the  histo- 
rian Josephus,  Let  it  be  further  observed,  that  in  none  of  the 
three  places  where  the  phrase  in  question  occurs  (to  wit,  ch.  i. 
15.  30.  and  here)  is  tt^ut^  accompanied  with  the  article  which, 
for  the  most  part,  attends  the  superlative,  especially  when  used 
for  a  title  of  distinction,  and  more  especially  still  when,  as  in 
this  place,  the  article  is  necessary  to  remove  ambiguity ;  for 
^rguiTay  without  it,  is  more  properly  an  adverb,  or  adverbial  pre- 
position, than  a  noun.  Add  to  all  this,  that  tt^mt®^  is  not  a  title 
which  we  find  any  where  else  in  the  N.T,  either  assumed  by  our 
Lord,  or  given  to  him.  This  title  is  indeed  in  one  place  (Mt. 
X.  2.)  gi'ven  to  Peter  as  first  of  the  apostles.  Of  the  propriety 
of  this  application  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  attentive  reader 
will  observe  that  the  objections  here  bfiered  against  Lardner's 
interpretation  of  the  clause  under  review,  equally  aflect  his  iu- 
terpretation  of  the  clause  ^oait©^  ^w  r,v,  ch.  i.  1.5.  30. 


482  NOTES  ON  ch.  xv. 

20.  If  they  have  observed  my  word,  they  will  also  observe 

yours,  ti  Taw    Xnyov  ftK   er^jf  j;o-atv,  t^  Ta»  onterj^ev  rtiptiTntriy.      E.  T.    /jf 

<Aey  have  kept  my  saying,  they  will  keep  yours  also.  Several 
critics  are  of  opinion,  that  the  word  t»;^«v  is  used  here  in  a  bad 
sense  for,  to  watch  with  an  insidious  design.  But  I  do  not  find 
that  the  simple  verb  tjj^mv  ever  occurs  in  this  sense  in  Scripture, 
though  the  compound  wi«^«t»j^«v  is  so  used  by  both  Mr.  and  L. 
It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that  the  phrase  t«^«v  tov  Aayav,  seems 
to  be  a  favourite  expression  of  the  Evangelist  John,  and  is  every- 
where else  manifestly  employed  in  a  good  sense  :  so  that  if  this 
be  an  exception,  it  is  the  only  one.  What  has  been  now  remark- 
ed, makes  much  more  in  favour  of  the  common  translation,  than 
what  has  been  observed  of  the  words  immediately  following  in 
verse  21.  which  imply  that  all  the  treatment  mentioned  had  been 
bad,  makes  against  it:  for  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  connection 
is  often  founded,  not  on  the  form  of  the  expression,  but  on  what 
is  suggested  by  it.  Our  Lord,  by  what  he  here  says,  recalls  to 
to  their  memories  the  neglect  and  contempt  with  which  his  doc- 
trine had  been  treated,  and  in  allusion  to  which  he  says.  All  this 
treatment,  &c.  I  shall  only  add,  that  even  admitting  that  there 
is  some  ambiguity  in  the  Gr.  verb  rii^ny,  it  will  not  surely  be 
thought  greater  than  there  is  in  the  Eng.  word  observe,  employ- 
ed in  this  translation,  and  sometimes  susceptible  of  an  unfavou- 
rable meaning. 

24.  But  now  they  have  seen  them,  and  yet  hate  both  me  and 
my  Father,  vtn  ec  >^  icDpccKciTi,  >^  (Aif^ta-tiicxTi,  j^  f/ite  >^  Tfl»  TTccn^x  /ttif. 
E.  T.  But  now  they  have  both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my 
Father.  In  order  to  give  consistency  to  the  argument  which  our 
Lord  here  uses,  we  are  obliged  to  consider  uvroi  as  understood 
after  sapctKaTt.  All  the  foreign  translations  I  have  seen,  whether 
from  the  Gr.  or  from  the  La.  supply  the  pronoun  in  this  place. 
Without  it,  the  words  convey  a  very  different  sense ;  a  sense 
which  is  neither  so  apposite,  nor  so  intelligible. 

25.  In  their  law.     Ch.  x.  34.  N. 


CU.   XTI~ 


S.  JOHN  483 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


2.  Nay  the  lime  is  coming  when — «AA'  e^x^rai  a^a  h».  E.  T. 
Fea  the  time  cometh  that— Bishop  Pearce  would  have  us  read 
umJ  i^jCiTcu  'a^x  in  a  parenthesis,  and  connect  h»  with  the  words 
which  precede,  because  he  thinks  that  to  render  '<v<*  when  is 
scarcely  to  be  justified.  But  he  has  not  devised  any  correction, 
or  taken  any  notice  of  verse  Z%  of  the  same  chapter,  where  the 
like  phrase  occurs,  t^x^ron  'eopoe.  >^  vw  eXuXvSev,  'tm  c-Ke^Tms-SnTe,  and 
where  the  \yx,  to  the  conviction  of  all  expositors,  denotes  when. 
This  is  a  plain  Hebraism  ;  their  causal  conjunction  '3  chi,  being 
sometimes  used  in  this  sense  ;  an  idiom  more  frequent  in  J.  than 
in  any  other  penman  of  the  N.  T.  We  have  another  example  of 
it  from  him,  if  I  mistake  not,  in  his  third  Epistle,  verse  4th. 
And  this,  by  the  way,  is  a  presumption  of  the  authenticity  of 

that  epistle. 

2  PVtll  think  he  offereth  sacrifice  to  God.,  <J'o|»;  A<«r^««v  jt^oo-- 
f  £^«v  T«  Qico.  E.  T.  Will  think  he  doth  God  service.  Our  trans- 
lators  have  here  followed  the  Vul.  which  has  arhitretur  obsegui. 
urn  se  proestare  Deo.  Er.  Zu.  Cas.  and  Be.  have  done  better 
in  substituting  ciiltum  for  obseqiiium.  The  La.  word  obsequium, 
and  the  Eng.  word  service,  are  too  general :  AaT^wa  is  properly 
the  public  service  of  religion,  and  when  joined,  as  in  this  place, 
with  7rfeir(pepeiy,  can  mean  only  sacrifice.  It  is  so  rendered  in  the 
Sy.  version  and  the  Go.  Some  adages  of  their  rabbles  regarding 
the  assassination  of  the  enemies  of  their  religion,  show  how  justly 
they  are  here  represented  by  our  Lord. 

3.  These  things  they  will  do,  rxvrx  TreturnFiv  o>(v.  E.  T.  These 
things  they  will  do  unto  you.  But  iftt*  is  wanting  in  many  MSS. 
of  principal  note,  as  well  as  in  others  of  less  consideration,  in 
the  Com.  edition,  and  in  that  of  Ben.  in  the  first  Sy.  version,  the 
Go.  the  Sax.  and  the  Ara. ;  also  in  some  La.  MSS.  In  the  2d 
Sy.  version,  it  is  marked  with  an  asterisk,  as  of  doubtful  autho- 
rity at  the  best.  It  seems  not  to  have  been  admitted  by  Chr. 
Cyril,  The.  or  Cyprian.  For  these  reasons  I  agree  with  Mill 
and  Wet.  in  rejecting  it. 


484  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvi. 

9.  Concerning  sin  ;  that  is,  their  sin,  in  rejecting  me,  whereof 
the  Spirit  will  give  incontestible  evidence  in  the  miracles  which 
he  will  enable  my  Apostles  to  perform  in  my  name,  and  the  suc- 
cess with  which  he  will  crown  their  teaching, 

10.  Concerning  righteousness  ;  that  is,  7ni/ righteousness  or 
innocence,  the  justice  of  my  cause  (Mt.  xxvii.  24.  N.),  of  which 
the  same  miraculous  power  exerted  for  me  by  my  disciples,  will 
be  an  irrefragable  proof,  convincing  all  the  impartial,  that  I  had 
the  sanction  of  Heaven  for  what  I  did  and  taught,  and  that,  in 
removing  me  hence,  God  hath  taken  me  to  himself. 

11.  Concerning  judgment ;  that  is,  divine  judgment,  soon  to 
be  manifested  in  the  punishment  of  an  incredulous  nation,  and  in 
defence  of  the  truth. 

13.  Into  all  the  truth,  h^  ■yrxtrav  rtiv  «A)j.9-««sv.  E.  T.  into  all 
truth.  The  article  ought  not  here  to  have  been  omitted.  It  is 
not  omniscience,  surely,  that  was  promised,  but  all  necessary 
religious  knowledge.  Yet  Mr.  Wesley's  is  the  only  Eng.  ver- 
sion I  have  seen  which  retains  the  article. 

16.    Within  a  little  while.     Diss.  XII.  P.  I.  §  24. 

25.  In  figures,  £v  Trcc^oifi-iccn;.  E.  T.  hi  proverbs.  Vul.  In 
proverbiis.  Er.  and  Zu.  Per  proverbia.  he.  Per  similitu di- 
nes. Cas.  Oratione  figwata.  nx^etf4.ix  is  used  by  the  Seventy 
in  translating  the  Ileb.  Wd  mashal,  which  signifies  not  only  a 
proverb,  but  whatever  is  expressed  in  figurative  or  poetical  lan- 
guage, as  their  proverbs  commonly  were.  Thus  it  is  used,  ch.  x. 
6.  for  a  similitude,  rendered  in  the  E.  T.  a  parable.  Here  it  is 
manifestly  used  in  all  the  latitude,  implied  in  the  expression  em- 
ployed by  Castalio;  that  is,  for  figurative  language,  not  intend- 
ed to  be  understood  by  every  body,  and  perhaps,  for  a  time,  not 
perfectly  even  by  the  Apostles  themselves. 

30.  That  any  should  put  questions  to  thee,  'lytx.  ri<;  c-s  i^arx. 
E.  T.  That  any  man  should  ask  thee.  There  are  two  Gr.  verbs 
not  synonymous,  used  in  this  context,  mthv  and  epturxv,  which 
are  both  rendered  in  the  E.  T.  ask.  The  former  answers  always 
to  the  Eng.  word,  when  it  means  to  beg,  to  entreat ;  the  latter 
{generally,  but  not  always,  when  it  denotes  to  put  a  question. 


CH.  XVII.  S.  JOHN.  485 

As  the  Eng.  verb  ask,  had  been  used  in  the  former  sense  in  verse 
26.  answering  to  ccire^yl  thought  it  better  here  to  use  a  periphra. 
sis,  than  to  employ  the  same  word  for  expressing  the  latter  sense, 
in  rendering  the  verb  epcorxa,.  Even  the  slightest  appearance  of 
ambiguity  should  be  avoided  in  the  translation,  when  there  can 
be  no  doubt  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  origiiial.  The  pur- 
port of  the  words,  therefore,  in  this  place,  is,  '  Thou  knowest 
'  us  so  perfectly,  and  what  all  our  doubts  and  difficulties  are,  as 
'  renders  it  unnecessary  to  apply  to  thee  by  questions.  Our  in- 
'  tentions  this  way  are  anticipated  by  the  instructions  which  thou 
'  art  giving  us  from  time  to  time.' 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

2.   Thai  he  may  bestoio  eternal  life  on  all  those  whom  thou 
hast  given  him,  im    ttuv  o   Sei'^itcxi  ctvru,   ^ua-»  ccvToti  iunt   u,tmm. 
The  words  seem  capable  of  being  rendered,  that  he  may  give  to 
them  all  that  thou  hast  given  to  him,  eternal  life.     Though  this 
rendering  appear  at  first  closer,  the  common  version  is,  in  my 
opinion,  preferable     n«v  o  followed  by  the  pronouns  of  the  third 
person,  in  whatever  case,  number,  or  gender,  is  a  Hebraism  an- 
swering to  -\m  S3  which  may  be  either  singular  or  plural,  and 
may  relate  either  to  persons  or  things.     The  pronoun  connected 
as  nnS  «d  ascertains  the  import.     Another  example  of  this  idiom 
•we  have  ch.  vi.  39.  'hx  Trav  o  SeSuKe  fMt,  U.VI  ctToXid-M  i%  uvm.  A  like 
idiom  we  find,  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  »  ra>   (a^uXutti  uvrn  la-B-nre.     Though 
the  Vul.  which  keeps  close  to  the  letter,  ut  omne  quod  dedisti 
ei,  det  eis  vitam  aternam,  seems  to  favour  the  second  interpre- 
tation, father  Si.  in  translating  the  Vul.  considers  theHeb.  idiom 
as  here  so  incontrovertible,  that,  without  assigning  a  reason,  in 
his  notes,  he  renders  it  afin  quHl  donne  la  vie  eternelle  a  toas 
ceux  que  vous  lui  avez  donne s ;  precisely  as  if  the  La.  had  been 
ut  omnibus  illis  quos  dedisti  ei,  det  vitam  aternam.      There 
would  be  no  propriety  in  translating  the  phrase  here  differently 
from  what  it  has  been  always  translated  ch.  vi.  39. 
2  Thy  apostle,  ch.  x.  36.  N. 
3.  The  Messiah.     Dis.  V.  P.  IV.  §  7. 

5.  Father,  glorify  thou  me  in  thine  on^n  presence,  J'o|«5-«v  f^t 
VOL.  IV.  61 


486  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvh, 

6-y,  TTxTi^,  ■zs-ce^ct  tnnvru.     E.  T.  O  Father^  glorify  thou  me  zsilh. 
thine  own  self.     This  expression,  though  apparently  more  lite- 
ral, is  remarkably  obscure.     The  force  of  the  Gr.  preposition 
TTci^x,  is  not  rightly  expressed  by  the  Eng.  zcith,  which,  as  appli> 
ed  here,  is  exceedingly  vague  and  indeterminate. 

11.  Preserve  them  in  tliy  nanie^  T»f;j5-av  xvra^  £v  ra  ovof,cxTi  c-a. 
E,  T.  Keep  through  thine  own  name  those- — .  It  must  be  ac- 
knowledged that  there  is  some  difficulty  in  the  words  iv  ru  (,u(ak- 
r;  ff-y,  which  I  have  rendered  literally  in  thy  name.  Name  is 
used  in  Scripture  sometimes  for  person^  Rev.  iii.  4,  ;  sometimes 
for  fame,  Vs.  Ixxvi.  1.;  and  sometimes,  when  applied  to  God,  for 
his  power,  or  other  perfections,  Ps,  xx.  i.  7.  When  mention  is 
made  of  fnaking  known  GocVs  name  to  the  heathen,  we  always 
understand  it  to  mean,  declaring  to  therii  his  nature  and  attri- 
butes, as  the  only  true  God.  It  is  solely  to  the  heathen,  or  those 
who  before  knew  not  God,  that,  in  the  O.  T.  we  find  mention  of 
revealing  his  name.  But  let  it  be  observed,  that  they  were  Jews 
of  whom  our  Lord  spoke,  verse  6th,  Avhen  he  said,  /  have  made 
known  thy  name  to  the  men  whom  thou  hast  given  me.  The  se- 
quel  shows,  that  he  meant  the  Apostles,  who,  before  they  became 
his  disciples,  were  the  disciples  of  Moses.  Now,  by  making 
known  the  name  of  God  to  those  who  enjoyed  the  old  dispensa- 
tion, is  plainly  suggested,  that  additional  light  was  conveyed  to 
them,  which  they  could  not  have  derived  from  it.  By  manifest- 
ing God's  name  to  them,  therefore,  we  must  understand  the  com- 
munication of  those  truths  which  peculiarly  characterize  the  new 
dispensation.  And  as  every  revelation  which  God  gives,  tends 
further  to  illustrate  the  divine  character,  the  instructions  which 
our  Lord  gave  to  his  disciples,  relating  to  life  and  immortality, 
and  the  recovery  of  sinners  through  his  mediation,  may  well  be 
called  revealing  God,  or  (which,  in  the  Heb.  idiom,  is  the  same) 
the  name  of  God  to  them.  When  the  connection  in  this  prayer 
is  considered  wi(h  any  degree  of  attention,  we  must  be  sensible 
that  the  words,  the  fiame  of  God,  in  verses  6th,  11th,  12th,  and 
26th,  denote  the  same  thing.  If,  then,  by  the  name  of  God,  verses 
6th  and  26th,  be  meant  the  great  foundations  of  the  Christian  in- 
stitution, the  being  preserved  or  kept  in  it,  verses  11th  and  12th, 
must  mean  their  being  enabled  to  continue  in  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  that  religion.  Our  translators,  by  rendering  tv  rm  ava^Lctrt 
(»'«  differently,  in  verses  11th  and  12th,  have  darkened  the  ex- 


CH.    XVII.  ®'    J*^"'^' 

pression,  and  led  the  generality  of  readers  into  mistakes.  Keep, 
throwrh  thine  own  name,  can  hardly  be  understood  otherw.se 
than  a"  signifying,  preserve,  by  thy  power.     Similar  expressions 
occur  in  the  Psalms  and  other  places.     If  verse  11th  .vere  the 
only  place  in  this  prayer  where  mention  is  made  of  the  name  of 
God   I  should  not  deny  that  this  interpretation  would  have  some 
plau'sibility.     But,  as  that  is  not  the  case,  we  cannot  interpret  .v 
r«  «v«^«r*  <r«  one  way  in  verse  Uth,  and  another  way  in  verse 
12th   where  it  is  similarly  connected  and  construed.    What  is  to 
be  remarked  in  the  subsequent  note,  serves,  in  some  degree,  to 
confirm  the  interpretation  now  given.  I  own  the  Eng.  word  name 
hardly  admits  this  latitude  of  acceptation.     But  it  was  observed 
(Diss'  XII.  P.  V.  §  12.),  that  we  are  obliged  sometimes,  in  order 
to  avoid  tiresome  circumlocutions,  to  admit  an  application  of 
particular  terms,  which  is  not  entirely  warranted  by  use.  When 
there  is  a  difficulty  (for  it  is  only  of  such  cases  I  am  speaking), 
there  is  this  advantage  in  tracing  the  words  of  the  onginal,  that 
the  sense  of  the  sacred  writer  is  not  arbitrarily  confined  by  the 
opinions  of  the  translator,  but  is  left  in  the  text,  as  nearly  as 
possible,  in  the  same  extent,  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader 

2  Which  thou  hast  given  me,  ««  ^i^uy^i  ^«'.     E.  T.  yyliom 
thou  hast  given  me.     But  there  is  a  great  majority  of  MSS.  and, 
among  them,  those  of  principal  consideration,  which  reject  the 
word  ««  in  this  place.     A  few  substitute  i  in  its  room,  but  the 
much  -rpater  number  have  ^.    In  either  way,  the  meaning  is  the 
same  with  that  given  in  this  version.     The  relative  in  Gr.  often 
takes  the  case  of  the  antecedent,  and  not  always,  as  in  La.  the 
case  that  is  governed  by  the  verb  witli  which  it  is  connected.  For 
readin-  ^,  there  is  also  the  authority  of  the  Com.  both  the  Sy. 
translations,  and  the  Ara.    Of  the  fathers,  there  are  Athanasius, 
Cyril    The   andEuth.;  likewise  many  modern  critics ;  amongst 
whom'  are.  Ham.  Mill,  and  Wet.     Add  to  this,  that  such  a  mis., 
take  as  the  change  of  ^  into  «?,  in  this  place,  is  easily  accounted 
for  :  ««  ^J^'^^?  i^«  occurs  in  the  very  next  verse.     It  is  incident 
to  transcribers,  either  through  inadvertency  in  directing  their 
eye,  or  through  suspicion  of  mistake  in  the  former  copier,  to 
make  the  expressions  of  the  author,  which  are  nearly  the  same, 
entirely  so.     Besides,  the  meaning  of  «?  hS^y^^i  is  more  obvious 
than  that  of  ^  ^.=^*-k«?,  which  might  readily  lead  a  transcriber  Iq 


48«  t  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XVIi. 


€onsidoi'  the  latter  as  a  mere  blunder  in  copying.  But  if  the 
word  was  originally  «?,  it  is  not  easily  to  be  accounted  for,  that 
it  should  have  been  so  generally  corrected  into  <y,  and  the  like  cor- 
rection on  verses  6th  and  12th  not  attempted.  It  may  be  obseJl. 
ed  in  passing,  that  this  reading  does  not  a  little  confirm  the  sense 
I  have  given  to  the  word  natne^  through  the  whole  of  this  passage. 
If,  by  the  name  here,  be  meant  the  Gospel  revelation,  nothing 
can  be  more  conformable  to  the  tenor  of  our  Lord's  whole  dis- 
course on  this  occasion  ;  this  revelation  was  given  by  the  Father 
to  his  Son,  to  be  by  him  communicated  to  the  world. 

^  That  they  may  be  one^  us  ii:e  ure^  Ivx  wcrtv  ev,  xxSag  J!|K.£<?.  The 
word  is  here  iv,  one  thing  ;  not  £<?,  one  person.  Ch.  x.  30.  N. 

13.  That  their  joy  in  me  may  he  complete.^  hx  iy^coa-i  mv  x<^<^* 
rj^v  if/.y,v  TrtTTM^oii^ivyiv  £v  xvtok;.  E.  T,  That  they  might  have  my  joy 
fidjilled  in  themselves.  What  meaning  our  translators  affixed  to 
these  words,  I  cannot  say  ;  but  the  whole  scope  and  connection 
make  it  evident,  that  ^  x°^?'^  ^  ^i^*>  denotes,  here,  notthe  joy  which 
I  have  (the  only  sense  which  the  words  my  joy  will  bear  in  Eng.), 
but  the  joy  whereof  I  am  the  object,  the  joy  they  will  derive  from 
me.  Beau,  seems  to  have  been  the  first  modern  interpreter  who 
rendered  the  words  intelligibly,  q/in  quails  goutent  en  moi  une 
joie  parfuite ;  and  the  only  one  in  Eng.  the  An. 

17.  By  the  truth.,  £v  t;?  xM^hx  o-a.  E.  T.  Through  thy  truth. 
The  pronoun  is  not  in  some  principal  MSS.  nor  in  the  Vul.  the 
Go.  and  the  Sax.  versions.  Cyril  seems  not  to  have  read  it;  and 
Ben,  and  Mill  reject  it.  It  is  very  unnecessary  here,  as  the  ex- 
planation subjoined,  thy  xeord  is  the  truth,  sufficiently  appropri- 
ates it. 

24.  Father,  I  would,  Trxnp,  ^£Xu.  E.  T.  Father,  I  will.  &t>jo 
expresses  no  more  than  a  petition,  a  request.  It  was  spoken  by 
our  Lord  in  prayer  to  his  heavenly  Father,  to  whom  he  was  obe- 
dient, even  unto  death.  But  the  words  J  will,  in  Eng.  when  will 
is  not  the  sign  of  the  future,  express  rather  a  command.  The  La. 
volo,  though  not  so  uniformly  as  the  Eng.  I  will,  admits  the  same 
interpretation  ;  and,  therefore,  Beza's  manner  here,  who  renders 
the  word  used  by  John,  velim,  is  much  preferable  to  that  of  the 
Vul.  Er,  Zu.  and  Cas.  who  say,  volo.  That  the  sense  of  the  Gr. 
word  is,  in  the  N.  T.  as  I  have  represented  it,  the  critical  reader 
may  soon  satisfy  himself,  by  consulting  the  following  passages 


CU.    XVIII. 


S.  JOHN.  489 


in  the  original:  Mt.  xii.  38.  xxvi.  39.  Mr.  vi.  23.x.  35.  la 
some  of  these,  the  verb  is  rendered  zcoiild,  by  our  translators  ; 
it  ought  to  have  been  rendered  so  in  them  all,  as  they  all  mani- 
festly imply  request,  not  command.  In  most  of  the  late  Eng. 
translations,  this  impropriety  is  corrected.  Dod.  and  Wes.  have, 
indeed,  retained  the  words  I  zcill ;  nay,  more,  have  made  them  the 
foundation  of  an  argument  (one  in  his  Paraphrase,  the  other  in 
his  Notes),  that  what  follows  IkUI^  is  not  so  properly  a  petition, 
as  a  claim  of  right.  But  this  argument  is  built  on  an  Anglicism 
in  their  translations,  for  which  the  sacred  author  is  not  accounta- 
ble. Augustine,  in  like  manner,  founding  on  a  Latinism,  argu- 
ed from  the  word  volo  of  the  Itc.  version,  as  a  proof  of  the  equa- 
lity of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  He  is  very  well  answered  by 
Be.  whose  sentiments,  on  this  subject,  are  beyond  suspicion.  See 
his  Note  on  the  place.  The  sons  of  Zebedee  also  use  the  word 
-S'fAaiM.sv,  Mr.  X.  35.  in  making  a  request  to  Jesus  ;  but  it  would  be 
doing  great  injustice  to  the  two  disciples  to  say,  either  that  they 
claimed,  as  their  right,  what  they  then  asked,  or  that  they  called 
themselves  equal  to  their  lord  and  master.  Calvin,  speaking  of 
those  who,  in  support  of  the  triwity  of  persons  in  the  godhead, 
argued  that  Moses,  in  his  account  of  the  creation,  joins  elohim. 
(a  word  signifying  God),  in  the  plural  number,  to  the  verb  bara 
(created),  in  the  singular,  advises  very  properly,  "  Monendi  sunt 
"  lectores  ut  sibi  a  violentis  ejusmodi  glossis  caveant"  (Com- 
ment, in  Gen.  i.  I.).  I  shall  conclude  this  note  with  the  words 
of  Cas.  (Defensio,  &c.)  :  "  Ego  veritatem  velim  veris  argumen- 
"  tis  defendi,  non  ita  ridiculis,  quibus  deridenda  propinetur  ad- 
*'  versariis." 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

1.  Over  the  brook  Kidron,  cre^xv  m  ^n/nx^^a  rm  KeSpuv.  E. 
T.  Over  the  brook  Cedron.  The  Al.  MS.  alone,  reads  m  KsS^uv, 
The  majority  of  modern  critics  agree  with  Jerom  in  thinking, 
that  this,  which  suits  the  Vul.  trans  torrentem  Cedron,  is  the 
genuine  reading ;  a  remarkable  instance  wherein  the  internal 
evidence  is  more  than  a  counterba-lance  to  numerous  testimonies, 
or  strong  external  evidence  on  the  opposite  side,     Kidron  is. 


490  NOTES  ON  ch.  xvrii. 

in  Heb.  the  name  of  a  brook  near  Jerusalem,  of  which  mention  fs 
several  times  made  in  the  historical  books  of  the  O.  T.  The 
name,  when  written  in  Gr.  characters,  coincides  with  the  geni- 
tive plural  of  the  appellative  tcehoi,  a  cedar.  The  transcribers  of 
the  N.  T.  were  (with  very  few,  if  any,  exceptions)  Greeks  or 
Latins,  who  knew  nothing  of  Heb.  Such,  finding  the  singular 
article  m  joined  with  the  plural  xeSpm^  would  naturally  impute 
it  to  inadvertency,  arising  from  hurry  in  transcribing.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  notion,  ts  would  readily  be  changed  into  t«v, 
by  all  who  chose  to  have  their  copies  clear  from  flagrant  blun- 
ders. This  so  perfectly,  and  with  so  much  natural  probability, 
accounts  for  the  change  of  m  and  t»v,  both  here,  and  in  some 
places  of  the  Sep.  as,  in  my  judgment,  greatly  preponderates  all 
the  M5S.  and  versions  in  the  opposite  scale.  Most  interpreters 
since  Jerom's  time,  that  is,  since  the  introduction  of  the  study 
of  Oriental  literature  into  the  West,  have  thought  so  likewise. 
It  may  be  remarked  also,  that  this  is  one  of  the  few  passages  in 
which  the  Eng.  translators  have  preferred  the  reading  of  the  Vul. 
though  unsupported,  to  the  almost  universal  reading  of  the  Gr. 
the  proper  version  of  which  is,  the  brook  of  Cedars.  My  rea- 
son for  saying  Kidron^  I  have  assigned  above.  Diss.  XII.  P. 
III.  §  6,  ^-c. 

II.  Put  up  the  szsord,  BstAe  t«v  fAxx»t^oiv  o-a.  E.  T.  Put  up 
tki/ sword.  But  the  pronoun  is  wanting  in  most  of  the  MSS.  of 
principal  account,  and  a  great  many  others.  It  is  neither  in  the 
Com.  edition,  nor  in  that  of  Ben.  It  is  not  in  either  Sy.  Go. 
Cop.  or  Arm.  versions.  Nonnus,  who  says  simply,  y^Xea  re  t/- 
Sti  z'^oi^  seems  not  to  have  read  it.     Will  and  Wet.  reject  it. 

15.  And  another  disciple,  yMt  h  esAPia;  iA.cM7rs>;.  This  is  another 
instance  wherein  our  translators  have  preferred  the  reading  of 
the  Vul.  to  that  of  the  common  Gr.  The  Vul.  says,  et  alius  dis- 
cipulus.  The  only  authorities  from, MSS.  for  this  reading,  are  the 
Al.  the  Cam.  and  another  of  less  note  ;  all  which  omit  the  arti- 
cle. Wet.  mentions  no  versions  which  favour  it,  except  the  Vul. 
and  the  Go.  It  is  surprising  that  he  does  not  mention  the  Sy. 
which  expresses  exactly  the  sense  of  the  Vul.  in  this  manner,  and 
one  of  the  other  disciples.  It  was  impossible,  in  that  language, 
which  has  no  articles,  to  show  more  explicitly  that,  in  their  ori- 
ginal, the  expression  was  indefinite.  The  Sax.  version  also  says, 
another.  This  renders  it  very  probable,  that  it  was  so  in  the  Old 


cu.xvni.  S.  JOHN.  491 

Itc.  Nonnus  too  expresses  it  indefinitely,  >^  v£oi  aAAo?  erxipo^. 
On  the  whole,  however,  if  it  were  not  for  that  evidence  which 
results  from  connection,  the  scope  of  the  place,  and  the  ordinarj- 
iaws  of  composition,  I  should  not  lay  great  stress  on  all  that  can 
be  pleaded  in  its  favour  from  positive  testimony. 

20.  Whither  the  Jews  constantly  resort,  oTra  TavToBev  ot  la^ctsai 
<rvvep;i(^ovriie,i.  E.  T.  Whither  the  Jews  ahoays  resort.  This  is  the 
third  example  in  this  chapter  (so  many  will  not  be  found  in  all 
the  rest  of  the  Gospel)  wherein  our  translators,  whom  I  have 
copied  in  these  instances,  have  deserted  the  common  Gr.  Here, 
however,  they  have  adopted  a  reading  vouched  by  the  plurality 
of  MSS.  though  unsupported  either  by  the  Vul.  or  by  the  Sy.  Be- 
side MSS.  the  Com.  and  some  other  valuable  editions,  read  7rx<i- 
Tore.  This  reading  is  favoured  also  by  the  Go,  and  second  Sy. 
and  by  some  of  the  Gr.  fathers.  UctvTei;  is  supported  by  the  Al, 
and  several  other  MSS.  some  early  editions,  with  the  Vul.  1st. 
Sy.  Cop.  Arm.  Sax.  and  Eth.  versions.  Be.  in  his  edition,  whence 
the  common  editions  are  derived,  has  put  ttuvtoSsv^  g'^ing  his  rea- 
son in  the  Notes,  in  these  words  :  "  in  vetustis  codicibus  legi- 
*'  mus  7rccvroT£ :  ego  vero  existimo,  vel  legendum  5r«vTe5,  vel  srav 
*'  T061V,  quod  facile  potuit  a  librariis  mutari  in  5ro6vroTf."  Wet. 
after  these  words  which  he  quotes,  subjoins,  very  properly,  "  et 
"  ita  quidem,  quod  mireris,  contra  omnes  codices  edidit."  I 
shall  add,  as  what  appears  to  me  still  more  surprising,  that  Be- 
za's  "  ego  vero  existimo,"  enforced  merely  by  his  own  example, 
should,  with  somauy  .todern  editors,  and  some  translators,  prove 
more  than  a  counterpoise  to  all  the  authorities  of  MSS.  and  ver- 
sions which  can  be  pleaded  against  it. 

28.  To  eat  the  passover.     Ch.  xiv.  14.  N. 

31.  We  are  not  permitted,  }]f/.iv  ay.  e^es-iv.  "Whether  the  powei 
of  judging,  in  capital  cases,  was  taken  from  them  by  the  Ro- 
mans, or  was,  in  effect,  as  Lightfoot  has  rendered  very  probable 
(Hor.  Heb.  Mt.  xxvi.  3.  J.  xviii.  31.)  abandoned  by  themselves, 
is  not  material.  The  resumption  of  a  power  which  has  long  gone 
into  disuse,  is  commonly  dangerous,  sometimes  impracticable. 
What  is  never  done  is,  everywhere,  considered,  as  what  cannot 
legally  be  done. 

37.  Thotc  art  king  then  ?  Ovy.sv  [ixs-aiv?  ct  c-u  ;  E.  T.  Art  thou 
a  king  then?  As  to  the  form  of  the  interrogation,  see  the  pa. 


4{>2  NOTES  ON 


eH.  XIX. 


rallel  passage  in  Mt ;  as  to  the  expression  jixriXcvi «,  though  it 
be  not  so  definite,  and,  consequently,  so  emphatical,  as  if  it  had 
the  article ;  it  is  not,  on  the  other  hand,  so  indefinite  as  it  is  in 
the  E.  T.  by  being  rendered  a  king.  This  would  never  have  been 
said  of  one  who  claimed  to  be  king  of  the  country,  which  wasj 
doubtless,  Pilate's  view  of  our  Lord's  pretensions.  The  expres- 
sion, a  king,  on  the  contrary,  suggests  the  notion  of  foreign  do- 
minions. The  import  of  the  original  is  sufficiently  expressed  in  our 
language,  by  the  omission  of  the  definite  article,  a  thing  not  un- 
common in  conversation  ;  and  the  more  natural  here,  as  the  words 
are  a  repetition  of  what  had  been  expressed  more  fully,  verse  33. 
For  1  have  had  occasion  to  observe  before,  that  such  ellipsis  are 
often  adopted  in  repeating  phrases  which  have  but  very  lately 
occurred.     Ch.  xix.  12.  N. 

40.  Thenthey  all  cried,  iJi^xvycta-etv  av  ttk^v  tt^vte?.  E.  T.  Then 
cried  they  all  again.  The  word  TraXiv  is  wanting  in  a  conside- 
rable number  of  MSS.  in  the  Com.  edition,  the  Sy.  Cop.  Sa^. 
Ara.  Arm.  and  Eth.  versions.  In  many  La.  MSS.  it  is  not  found. 
Besides,  it  does  not  suit  the  preceding  part  of  our  Lord's  trial, 
as  related  by  this  Evangelist,  who  makes  no  mention  of  their 
crying  in  this  manner  before. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

%  A  purple  mantle,  'if^xTiov  we^<^y^yv.  It  is  called,  Mt.  xxvii. 
28.  a  scarlet  cloak,  x-^xf^v^ec  aoxicivtiv.  The  names  denoting  the 
colour  of  the  garment,  ought  to  be  understood  w  ith  all  the  lati- 
tude common  in  familiar  conversation.  This  cloak,  in  strictness, 
may  have  been  neither  purple  nor  scarlet,  and  yet  have  had  so 
much  of  each,  as  would  naturally  lead  one  to  give  it  one  of 
these  names,  and  another  the  other. 

12.  JVhoever  calleih  himself  king,  vcti  o  ^ccriXiu,  uvrov  nrotn, 
E.  T.  Whosoever  maketh  himself  a  king.  That  the  verb  ■xoui* 
here  means  no  moi-e  t-han  to  call,  is  evident  from  verse  7th.  We 
have,  in  this  verse,  an  example  of  what  was  observed  on  ch.  xviii. 
37.  The  sentence  whereof  these  words  are  a  part,  is  true,  when 
3«!-<Ae(a  is  rendered  king,  but  not  when  rendered  a  king.  Judea. 


CH.  XIX.  S.  JOHN.  493 

at  that  time,  together  with  Syria,  to  which  it  w:as  annexed,  made 
a  province  of  the  empire.  Nothing  more  certain,  than  that  who- 
ever,  in  Judea,  called  himself  king,  in  the  sense  wherein  the 
word  was  commonly  understood,  opposed  Cassar;  for,  if  theking- 
dom  to  which  he  laid  claim,  was  without  the  bounds  of  the  Ro- 
man empire,  the  title  nowise  interfered  wi<h  the  rights  of  the  em- 
peror. So  much  does  the  significance  of  a  sentence  sometimes 
depend  on  what  would  be  thought  a  very  minute  circumstance. 

14.  Nozo  it  teas  the  preparation  of  the  paschal-sabbath,  r,v  ^s 
7rctpxrKev>,  m  tzc^t^x^ol.  E.  T.  And  it  zcas  the  preparation  of  the 
passover.  The  word  %-cipoirx.£Vii,  in  the  N.  T.  denotes  always,  in 
my  opinion,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath.  My  reasons  for  this 
opinion  are  as  follows  :  1st,  The  explanation  now  given,  coin, 
cides  exactly  with  the  definition  which  Mr.  gives  of  that  word, 
ch.  XT.  42.  nv  TTupcca-icivt)  0  cri  ^/Jor«ff«Tav.  It  mas  (he preparation, 
that  is,  the  eve  of  the  Sabbath.  2dly,  The  word  occurs  six  times 
in  the  N.T. ;  and,  in  all  these  places,  confessedly  means  the  sixth 
day  of  the  week,  answering  to  our  Friday,  and  consequently  be- 
fore the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  Saturday.  3dly,  The  preparation 
of  all  things  necessary  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,  that  they 
might  be  under  no  temptation  to  violate  the  sabbatical  rest,  was 
expressly  commanded  in  the  law.  Ex.  xvi.  5.  23.  There  was 
nothing  analogous  to  this  enjoined  in  preparation  for  the  other 
feasts.  But  it  may  be  objected,  that,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, the  expression  is  Ts-u^xa-KtvTt  •?«  -TrctTy^u,.  To  this  it  has 
been  answered,  and  I  think  justly,  that  the  word  'zru.^x,^,  was  not 
always  confined  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb  or  the  kid,  appoint- 
ed to  be  on  the  fourteenth  of  the  month  Nisim,  at  even  ;  but  was 
often  extended  to  the  whole  of  the  festival,  which  began  with  the 
paschal  sacrifice,  properly  so  called,  and  continued  the  seven 
days  of  unleavened  bread  which  immediately  followed.  The  whole 
time  is  called  indifferently,  sometimes  the  feast  of  the  passover, 
sometimes  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  In  further  confirma- 
tion  of  this,  it  has  been  observed,  that  other  sacrifices  offered 
during  that  period,  were  sometimes  termed  the  passover.  Deut. 
xvi.  2.  it  is  said,  thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  passover  unto  the  Lord 
thy  God,  ofthefock  and  the  herd.  Now,  the  last  term,  the  herd, 
could  only  relate  to  the  other  sacrifices  presented  during  the  se- 
•pn  days  which  succeeded,  and  not  to  the  signal  commemorativp 
VOL,  IV,  62 


494  NOTES  ON  ch.  xix. 

sacrifice  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  pussover^  with  which 
the  festival  was  introduced ;  for,  as  to  it,  it  could  be  taken  only 
from  the  flock.  Nor  does  the  argument  rest  on  this  single  })as- 
sage.  In  2Chron.xxxv.  7,  8,  9.  bullocks  {v,\\\c]\  are  there  im- 
properly rendered  oxeti)  are  mentioned  as  passover  offerings,  in 
the  same  way  with  lambs  and  le/'ds.  Now,  if  the  whole  period, 
and  the  sacrifices  offered  therein,  were  sonietimes  familiarly  call, 
ed  the  passover,  it  is  extremely  |)robable  that  the  Sabbath  of  the 
passover-week  should,  in  the  same  way,  be  distinguished  from 
other  Sabbaths,  especially  as  it  appears  to  have  been  considered 
by  them  as  a  day  peculiarly  memorable.  Thus,  verse  3 1st,  the 
Evangelist  tells  us,  that  that  Sabbath  (he  is  speaking  of  the  day 
after  our  Lord's  crucifixion)  zcas  a  great  day.  I  have,  there- 
fore, for  the  sake  of  perspicuity,  rendered  the  wcrd  ttuo-^x  here, 
paschal. sabbath.  This  serves  also  to  account  for  what  we  are 
told,  ch.  xviii.  28.  that  the  Jews  entered  not  the  prctorimn.,  lest 
they  should  be  defiled^  and  so  not  in  a  condition  to  eat  the  pass- 
over.  If  we  suppose  (and,  in  this  supposition,  there  is  surely 
nothing  incongruous)  that  the  Evangelist  used  the  word  in 
the  same  latitude  that  Moses  and  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles 
did,  in  the  passages  above  quoted,  the  whole  difficulty  vanishes. 
No  more  is  meant  by  eating  the  passover^  than  partaking  in  the 
sacrifices  olfered  during  the  days  of  unleavened  bread,  which  the 
rabbies  have  since  distinguished  by  the  name  chagiga.  Others 
have  attempted  to  remove  these  difficulties  by  supposing  that  our 
Lord  anticipated  the  legal  time,  that  he  might  have  an  opportu- 
nity of  eating  the  passover  before  his  death  ;  a  thing  extremely 
improbable  in  every  view.  It  does  not  suit  the  circumstances  of 
the  story,  as  related  by  Mt.  Mr.  and  L.  (for,  as  to  this,  J.  is  si- 
lent), who  all  speak  of  it  just  as  men  would  speak  of  a  festival, 
celebrated  at  the  known  and  stated  time,  ai;d  in  the  usual  man- 
ner, and  not  as  in  a  way  singular  and  irregular.  Further,  there 
is  no  omission  of  duty  in  not  celebrating  an  anniversary  which 
one  does  not  live  to  see :  but,  in  anticipating  the  time,  there 
would  have  been  a  real  transgression  of  the  commandment,  which 
expressly  confined  the  observance  to  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month,  permitting  no  change  of  the  day,  except  in  a  particular 
case  of  uncleanness,  M'hich  is  not  pretended  to  have  taken  place 
here  ;  and  in  which  case  the  choice  of  another  day  is  not  left 
open,  but  the  time  i-^  fixed  to  tlie  fourteenth  of  the  ensuing  month. 


en.  XIX. 


S.  JOHN.  495 


Add  to  this,  that,  in  such  an  anticipation  of  the  sacrifice,  the  con- 
currence of  some  of  the  priesthood  would  have  been  necessary 
(see2  Chron.  xxx.  15,  16,  17.  xxxv,  11.),  which,  we  have  reason 
to  believe,  could  not  have  been  obtained.  To  obviate  these  objec- 
tions,  distinctions  have  been  devised,  of  which  we  find  not  a  ves- 
tise  in  Scripture,  or  in  the  writings  of  the  rabbics.    Such  is  that 
of  Gro.  between  the  paschal  sacrifice  and  the  paschal  commemo- 
ration.    The  latter,  he  supposes  our  Lord  to  have  solemnized, 
but  not  the  former.     A  manner  of  solving  difficulties,  so  hypo, 
thetical,  and  so  fanciful,  as  it  offers  no  evidence,  needs  no  confu- 
tation.    Those  who  choose  to  see  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  mat- 
ter may  consult  Lightfoot  Iloraj  Heb.  on  Mr.  xiv.  12.  and  J. 
xviii.  28.  or  Whitby's  Appendix  to  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Mr. 
2  About  the  sixth  hour,  «f*  ^e  ^tsi  Un,.  As  this  does  not  per. 
foctly  accord  with  Mr.  (xv.  25.),  who  says,  it  uas  the  third  Iwur 
when  thej)  nailed  him  to  the  cross,  such  an  appearance  of  contra, 
diction  could  not  fail  to  be  soon  observed ;  and  the  observation 
has  not  failed  of  producing  the  usual  effect— the  correction  of 
one  Gospel  by  another.  Accordingly,  the  Cam.  MS.  reads  rp,T-^  ; 
but  little  regard  is  due  to  this,  if  Wetstein's   remark  be  just, 
that  the  leaf  is  not  written  by  the  hand  which  wrote  the  rest  of 
the  MS.  but  appears,  from  the  character,  to  be  of  a  much  later 
date.     Certain  it  is,  that,  in  the  La.  translation  wherewith  that 
copy  is  accompanied,  the  word  is  sexta.     There  are  only  three 
other  MSS.  of  little  account,  which  read  r^ir--;.    Nonnus  also  has 
read  thus :  but  not  one  of  the  ancient  translators.     Eusebius, 
and,  after  him,   other   Gr.  commentators,  favour  this  reading. 
Dod.  in  his  Paraphrase,  adopts  it,  though  he  translates  the  words 
in  the  common  way.     He  supports  his  opinion,  in  a  note,  from 
a  passage  found  in  a  fragment  of  Peter  of  Alexandria ;  concern, 
ing  which,  Wet.  observes,  that  Petavius  has  shown  that  Peter  was 
not  the  author.     The  common  hypothesis  is,  that  some  early 
transcriber  has  mistaken  the  T,  the  numeral  mark  for  3,  for  the 
S-,  the  mark  for  6  ;  and  thus  has  substituted  \x.rv,  instead  of  r^^r^j. 
Others  suppose  that  J.  speaks  of  the  condemnation  of  Jesus,  Mr. 
of  the  crucifixion  ;  that  J.  reckons  the  hours  as  we  do,  and  means 
6  in  the  morning  ;  Mr.  speaks  in  the  Jewish  manner,  and  means 
9;  and  that,  consequently,  three  -hours  intervened  between  the 
seiitence  and  the  execution.     Abstracting  from  other  improbabi- 


496  NOTES  ON  ch.  xix. 

lities  in  this  account,  it  is  manifest,  from  several  places  of  this 
Gospel,  ch.  i.  39.  iv.  6.  52.  that  J.  like  all  the  other  Evangelists, 
reckoned  the  hours  in  the  Jevvisli  manner.  Harmer's  solution 
(Vol.  3.  Obs.  40.)  that  "  it  was  the  sixth  hour,  not  of  the  day, 
"  but  of  the  preparation  of  the  passover  peace-offerings,"  does 
not  satisfy.  When  the  historian  said,  Hv  ^s  7rct^»(ry,£V)],  It  zeas  the 
preparation^  he  plainly  named,  and  has  been  always  understood 
to  name,  the  day  of  the  week.  Now  it  is  well  known  that  the 
whole  Friday  was  so  called,  without  regard  to  the  time  actually 
spent  in  preparation.  Nor  is  there  ground  to  think  that  there 
was  any  allusion  to  the  passover  peace-offerings.  It  was  the 
preparation  requisite  for  the  due  observance  of  the  sabbath,  which 
alone  occasioned  this  nam.e  being  given  to  the  day.  Had  the  pre- 
paration  necessary  for  the  sacrifices  given  ground  for  this  appel- 
lation, every  day  had  been  a  paraskeue^  as  every  day,  more  es- 
pecially every  festival,  there  were  sacrifices.  Now  it  is  evident 
that  the  WAme  puraslceue  among  the  Jews,  was  as  much  appro- 
priated to  the  sixth  day  of  the  week,  as  the  name  sabbath  was  to 
the  seventh.  Mr.  gives  us  7r^e5-«(?£'«Tav  as  a  synonymous  term.  For 
my  part,  I  prefer  the  solution  (though  it  may  be  accounted  but 
an  imperfect  one)  given  by  those  who  consider  the  day  as  divid- 
ed into  four  parts,  answering  to  the  four  watches  of  the  night. 
These  coincided  with  the  hours  of  3,  6,  9,  and  12,  or,  in  our 
way  of  reckoning,  9,  12,  3,  and  6,  which  suited  also  the  solemn 
times  of  sacrifice  and  prayer  in  the  temple  ;  that,  in  cases  where- 
in they  did  not  think  it  of  consequence  to  ascertain  the  time  with 
great  accuracy,  they  did  not  regard  the  intermediate  hours,  but 
only  those  more  noted  divisions  which  happened  to  come  nearest 
the  time  of  the  event  spoken  of.  Mr.  says,  sjv  'upx.  r^irvj ;  from 
which  we  have  reason  to  conclude,  that  the  third  hour  was  past. 
J.  says,  'ta^a  'uo-ei  ejtTj) ;  from  which  I  think  it  probable,  that  the 
sixth  hour  was  not  yet  come.  On  this  supposition,  though  the 
Evangelists  may,  by  a  fastidious  reader,  be  accused  of  want  of 
precision  in  regard  to  dates,  they  will  not,  by  any  judicious  and 
candid  critic,  be  charged  with  falsehood  or  misrepresentation. 
Who  would  accuse  two  modern  historians  with  contradicting 
each  other,  because,  in  relating  an  event  which  had  happened  be- 
tween  10  and  11  forenoon,  one  had  said  it  was  past  9  o'clock: 
the  other,  it  was  draw  ing  towards  noon  ? 


cii.  XIX.  S.  JOHN.  497 

23.  His  mantle^  to,  ly.aTia  uvth.     Ch.  xiii.  4.  N. 

25.  Mary,  the  zoife  of  Cleophas,  Mx^iu.  --?'  m  ¥.xu7ira.  The  Ara. 
Tersion  renders  it,  Mary,  the  daughter  of  Cleophas.  The  ori- 
ginal expression  is  susceptible  of  either  interpretation.  Mt.  i.  6. 
N.  I  have  followed  the  generality  of  interpreters,  who  think  that 
Cleophas  here  is  another  name  for  him  called  Alpheus.   Mt.  x.  3. 

29.  Having  fastened  it  to  a  twig  of  hyssop,  hs-a-uzra  Tre^tSevreq. 
There  must  have  been  some  plant  in  Judea  of  the  lowest  class  of 
trees  or  shrubs,  which  was  either  a  species  of  hyssop,  or  had  a 
strong  resemblance  to  what  the  Greeks  called  uo-o-^y^ro? ;  inasmuch 
as  the  Hellenist  Jews  always  distinguished  it  by  that  name.  In. 
deed,  the  Gr.  word,  if  we  may  judge  from  its  affinity  in  sound, 
is  probably  derived  from  the  Heb.  name  jun,  ezob.  It  is  said  of 
Solomon,  1  Ki.  iv.  33.  that  he  spake  of  trees,  from  the  cedar 
tree  that  is  in  Lebanon,  even  unto  the  hyssop  that  springeth  out 
of  the  wall.  Now,  they  did  not  reckon  among  trees  any  plants 
but  such  as  had  durable  and  woody  stalks.  (See  N.  on  Mt.  vi. 
30.)  That  their  hyssop  was  of  this  kind,  is  evident,  also,  from 
the  uses  of  sprinkling,  to  which  it  is,  in  many  cases,  appointed 
by  the  law  to  be  applied. 

30.  Yielded  up  his  spirit,  -xot^s^Mx-e  to  Trvev/^ct.   Mt.  xxvii.  30.  N, 

40.  Which  is  the  Jewish  manner  of  embalming,  x.etSui;  iSe?  ert 
roti  la^ittotq  evTcitpixi^Hv.  E.  T.  As  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to 
bury.  But  the  proper  meaning  of  the  verb  evroKpict^^Hv  is  not  to 
bury,  but  to  embalm,  or  to  prepare  the  body  for  burial— /)o^/m- 
cire,  corpus  ad  sepultaram  componere.  The  Vul.  indeed,  ren- 
ders the  clause  sicut  mas  est  J udceis  sepelire,  which  is  the  real 
source  of  the  error  in  modern  translations.  Suffice  it  to  observe 
here,  that  the  verb  aroi^ix^uv,  and  the  verbal  noun  aTa^pux.T^/.ac,,  are 
used  in  the  N.  T.  only  in  relation  to  the  embalming  of  the  body 
of  our  Lord.  The  word  used  for  io  bury,  is  invariably  ^«7rrf<v. 
The  use  followed  by  the  Sep.  is  entirely  similar  :  £vri«<p<«(^e;»  is 
to  prepare  the  corpse  ;  5«5rr«v  is  to  bury.  The  import  of  both 
words,  and,  consequently,  the  distinction  between  them,  is  exem- 
plified. Gen.  1.  2.  5.  In  verse  2d,  ^^fltr£T«|£v  lu'7y,<^  re/?  tuio-o)  ccvth 
Toii  ivratpixroiii  £vra.<pixa-ctt  toi  TroiTi^a  oivm,  xcci  lyerx  ^icttriM  ol  evratpi' 
fii-xi  rov  Is-fixtix,  E.  T.  Joseph  commanded  his  servants,  the  physi- 
cians, to  embalm  his  father  ;  and  the  physicians  embalmed  Israel. 
Whereas,  in  verse  5th,  Joseph's  words  to  Pharaoh  are — 'o  -ttxttio 


498  NOTES  ON 


CH.  XIX. 


fu  B'uipeii.  vvv  i<v  av«t«c45,  B-»'<^a  Toy  tcitb^x  {ah.  E.  T.  My  father 
made  7ne  swear  ^  saying^  "  In  my  grave  which  I  have  digged  for 
"  me  in  the  land  of  Canaan^  there  shall  thou  bury  »/e."  Norc^ 
therefore^  let  me  go  ttp,  I  pray  thee,  and  bury  my  father.  Here 
the  difference  between  the  two  -verbs  is  distinctly  marked.  The 
former,  to  evrecpix^nv,  was  the  work  of  the  physicians,  according 
to  the  import  of  the  Heb.  term,  or  of  the  embaltners^  according 
to  the  Gr. ;  the  latter,  re  3^«^n<v,  was  the  work  of  Joseph,  and 
the  company  who  attended  him :  the  former  was  executed  in 
Egypt,  the  latter  in  Canaan.  Let  it  be  observed  further,  ;hat 
the  two  Gr.  words  are  the  translation  of  two  Heb.  words,  which 
are  never  used  promiscuously,  or  mistaken  for  each  other.  In 
this  passage,  which  is  the  only  place  wherein  the  Seventy  have 
used  the  verb  itTK^tx^nv,  the  Vul.  has  carefully  preserved  the 
distinction.  It  renders  evredptx^etv,  aromatibus  condire,  and  B-xtt. 
Teiv,  sepelire.  To  a  judicious  Eng.  reader,  who  considers  the 
vast  quantity  of  the  most  costly  aromatics  which,  the  Evangelist 
tells  us,  were  bestowed  by  Nicodemus  on  the  body  of  our  Lord, 
the  clause  subjoined,  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury,  must 
have  a  very  strange  appearance.  The  first  reflection  that  would 
naturally  arise  in  his  mind  would  be,  '  If  so,  surely  not  one  of  a 
'  hundred  of  the  people  could  afi"ord  to  be  buried.'  Yet  certain 
it  is,  that  no  nation  was  more  careful  than  the  Jewish,  to  bury 
their  dead,  though,  very  probably,  not  one  of  a  hundred  was  em- 
balmed. But  it  had  been  predicted  of  our  Lord,  not  only  that 
he  should  be  numbered  with  transgressors  (malefactors),  not 
only  that  his  grave  should  be  appointed  with  the  wicked  (which 
was  the  case  of  those  who  suffered,  as  criminals,  by  public  jus- 
tice ;  Nicolai  de  Sepulchris  Hebraeorum,  Lib.  III.  Cap.  V  )  ;  but 
that  he  should  be  joined  with  the  rich  in  his  death  ;  circumstan- 
ces which,  before  they  happened,  it  was  very  improbable,  should 

ever  concur  in  the  same  person. L.  Cl.  and  Si.  are  the  only 

French  translators  who  seem  to  have  been  sensible  of  the  proper 
meaning  of  cvTx(ptx(^nv.  The  former  says,  selon  la  coutume  que  les 
Juifs  ont  de  preparer  les  corps  pour  les  ensevelir  ;  the  latter,  com' 
me  le  pratiquent  les  Juifs  avant  que  d'  ensevelir  leurs  morts.  The 
late  Eng.  translations  follow  implicitly  the  common  version. 


CH.  ix.  S.  JOHN.  499 


CHAPTER  XX. 

1.  Saw  that  the  stone  had  been  removed.  BAe^«  tov  AeS^sv  v^- 
jM,£vev.  E.  T.  Seeth  the  stone  taken  aicay.  The  import  of  this 
Eng.  expression  is  tliat  she  was  present  at  the  removing  of  the 
stoue.  The  Gr.  plainly  implies  that  it  had  been  removed  before 
she  came  ;  jj^;m.£k»v  is  not  the  present  but  the  preter-perfect  partici- 
ple. The  Vul.  vidit  lapidem  suhlatum,  where  the  word  is  equi- 
vocal, has  misled  our  Interpreters.  The  La.  has  not  like  the  Gr. 
distinct  participles  for  the  present  and  for  the  past.  None  of  the 
Eng.  translations  I  have  seen,  except  the  An,  Dod.  and  Hej . 
have  escaped  this  blunder.  None  of  the  Fr.  Catholic  or  protes- 
tant,  have  fallen  into  it.  Lu.  in  Ger.  has  avoided  it,  s-o  has  Dio. 
in  Ita. 

8.  Believed  [the  report'],  e7nr£v(re.  E.  T.  Believed.  It  natur- 
ally occurs  here  to  ask  what  ?  The  active  verb  believe,  in  our 
language,  requires,  in  every  case,  where  it  is  not  manifest  from 
the  preceding  words,  the  addition  of  the  thing  believed.  "Was 
this,  in  the  present  instance,  our  Lord's  resurrection  ?  No:  that 
had  not  yet  been  reported  to  him,  or  so  much  as  insinuated. 
Mary  Magdalene  had  affirmed  only  that  the  body  had  been  car- 
ried off,  and  that  she  knew  not  where  they  had  laid  it.  Besides, 
we  learn,  from  what  immediately  follows,  that  our  Lord's  first 
appearance  to  her  (and  to  her  the  Evangelist  Mr.  informs  us, 
xvi.  9.  that  he  appeared  first  of  all)  was  after  the  two  disciples 
had  left  the  place.  The  ellipsis  here,  therefore,  is  most  naturally 
supplied  by  the  words  the  report,  to  wit,  that  made  by  Mary 
above  recited,  which  had  occasioned  the  visit  made  at  that  time 
to  the  sepulchre,  by  the  two  disciples.  The  Cam.  MS.  reads  rnc 
tTTtrivG-ev.  But  in  this  that  MS.  is  singular,  not  having  the  sup- 
port of  any  MS.  or  version.  Even  the  La.  translation,  with 
which  it  is  accompanied,  has  no  negative  particle. 

10.  To  their  companions,  tt^^  exvnn;.  E.  T.  Unto  their  oien 
home.  The  words  are  capable  of  either  interpretation  ;  but  I 
have,  with  Dod.  adopted  the  former,  as  it  suits  better  what  is  re- 
lated both  by  this,  and  by  the  other  Evangelists;  from  all  of 
whom  we  learn  that  our  Lord's  disciples  spent  much  of  this  day 
together. 


500  NOTES  ON  ch.  xx. 

17.  Luy  not  hands  on  ine^  M;j  fta  «^r«.  E.  T.  Touch  me  not. 
The  verb  mtfthtSm  in  the  use  of  the  Seventy,  denotes  not  only  to 
touchy  but  to  Imj  hold  on^  to  cleave  to^  as  in  Job,  xxxi.  7.  Ezek, 
xli.  6.  and  other  places.  The  sense  here  plainly  is,  '  Do  not  de- 
'•  tain  me  at  present.  The  time  is  precious.  Lose  not  a  moment, 
'  therefore,  in  carrying  the  joyful  tidings  of  my  resurrection  to 
'•  my  disciples.' 

19.  Jesus  came  zahcre  the  disciples  zoere  convened^  the  doors 
having  been  shut  for  fear  of  the  Jews^  >^  rm  ^vpm  y.eK,XHo-i^sym^ 

oTTii  jj5"«v  01  fjbot^-yiTM  trvv/iyf/^svoij  oix  Tov  d>aCov  rav  la^oiWV^  sjAflfV  o  Ijjry;. 

E.  T.  When  the  doors  were  shut,  where  the  disciples  were  as- 
sembled for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  Jesus.  This  arrangement 
does  not  well  in  English  :  if  it  do  not  suggest  a  false  meaning, 
it  at  least  renders  the  true  meaning  obscure.  The  disciples  as- 
sembled, but  surely  not  for  fear  of  the  Jews;  for,  as  they  did  not 
intend  by  violence  to  oppose  violence,  if  any  should  be  offered 
them,  they  could  not  but  know  that  to  assemble  themselves  would 
more  expose  them  to  danger  than  any  other  measure  they  could 
take.  The  plain  matter  is  :  they  assembled  for  mutual  advice  and 
comfort,  and  being  assembled,  the  doors  were  shut  for  fear  of  the 
Jews,  as  they  were  well  aware  of  the  consequence  of  being  dis- 
covered at  such  a  time,  in  consultation  together.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  words  do  not  necessarily  imply,  that,  whilst  the  doors 
continued  shut,  our  Lord  entered  miraculously.  K£>i}\it(rf^!VA>v  is 
even  more  literally  rendered  having  been  shut,  than  being  shut, 
or  when  they  zoere  shut ;  as  it  is  the  preterperfect,  not  the  pre- 
sent or  imperfect  participle.  They  may  have  been,  therefore,  for 
aught  related  by  the  Evangelist,  made  by  miracle  to  fly  open  and 
give  him  access. 

25.  Put  my  finger  into  the  print  of  the  nails,  /3«A<y  tov  SctK.rv- 
Aov  f/^H  «s  rov  rvTTov  rm  viXmv.  Vul.  Mittam  digitum  meum  in  lo- 
cum clavorum.  The  Al.  and  four  other  MSS.  have  tsttov  for  tv. 
jrsv.  The  Sy.  as  well  as  the  Vul.  and  Sax.  follows  this  reading. 
The  sense  is  the  same. 

27.  Be  not  incredulous,  but  believe,  f^,-^  ytva  at7nr(^,  ot,X\x. 
•T<r(^.  E.  T.  He  not  faithless,  but  believing.  The  word  faith- 
less is  here  used  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  now  obsolete.  Both  the 
Gr.  words  ttit®-  and  aTri?^,  in  this  passage,  are  to  be  under- 


CH.  XXI.  S,  JOHN.  501 

stood  as  merely  Hellenistical  for  credens  and  non  credens,  a 
sense  in  which  they  frequently  occur  in  the  N.  T.  See  Acts,  x. 
45.  xvi.  1.  1  Cor.  vii.  1^,  13,  14.  1  Tim.  iv.  3.  10.  12.  v.  16. 
Ti.  2.  In  these  commonly  the  meaning  has  been  justly  exhibited 
by  interpreters.  In  rendering  Gal.  iii.  9.  are  oi  iK-rtrtax;  tvXoyav- 
Tcii  a-vv  T6>  TTt^a  Aji^cixf^,  our  translators  have  been  rather  unlucky 
in  an  expression  which,  if  not  improper  at  the  time,  was,  at  least, 
equivocal,  and  darkened  the  sense.  So  then  they  v:hich  be  of 
faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham.  The  connection  here 
appears  more  in  the  sound  than  in  the  sense.  Properly,  They^ 
therefore^  who  believe^  are  blessed  with  Abraham  who  believed. 

30,  31.  Many  other  miracles^  &c.  Grotius  is  of  opinion  that 
this  Gospel  concludes  with  these  two  verses,  and  that  the  follow- 
ing chapter  has  been  afterwards  annexed  by  the  church  of  Ephe- 
sus,  in  like  manner  as  the  last  chapter  of  the  pentateuch,  and  the 
last  of  Josephus  have,  after  the  death  of  the  authors,  been  added 
by  the  sanhedrim.  His  reasons  are,  1.  The  resemblance  whick 
this  bears  to  the  conclusion  of  the  next  chapter,  v.  24,  25.  2. 
The  designation  of  the  author  there  by  the  3d  person  sing,  his 
testimony.  3.  The  application  that  is  made  of  the  1st  persoa 
plur.  IVe  know.  In  regard  to  the  first,  it  has  been  justly  ob- 
served, that,  with  equal  reason,  the  three  last  verses  of  the  epis. 
tie  to  the  Romans  may  be  accounted  spurious.  As  to  the  other 
two,  suffice  it  to  observe,  that  it  is  not  uncommon  in  the  apostle 
John,  to  speak  of  himself  either  in  the  3d  person  sing,  (as  in  ch. 
xiii.  23,  &c.  xviii.  15,  16.  xix.  26,  27.  35.  xx.  2,  &c.)  or  in 
the  1st  person  plur.  (as  in  ch.  i.  14.  16,  1  Jo.  i.  1,2,  &c.)  This 
notion  of  Gro.  deserves,  therefore,  to  be  rated  as  merely  a  mo- 
dern conjecture  opposed  to  the  testimony  of  all  ecclesiastical  an- 
tiquity,  MSS.  editions,  versions,  commentaries,  which  uniformly 
attest  the  last  chapter,  as  much  as  any  other  in  the  book. 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

7.  Girt  on  his  upper  garment,  rev  cTrahri^v  ht^ua-ccro.  E.  T. 
He  girt  his  fishers  coat  unto  him.  ETssv^vry/i;,  agreeably  to  its 
etymology  from  iTrev^vu,  super  induo,  signifies  an  upper  garment. 
It  occurs  in  no  other  place  of  the  N.  T. ;  but,  from  the  use  the 
Seventy  have  made  of  it  in  the  Old,  there  is  no  reason  to  confine 

VOL.  IV.  63 


502  NOTES  ON  ch.  xxi. 

the  meaning  to  the  garb  of  any  particular  profession,  or  even  to 
that  of  either  sex.  In  one  of  the  only  two  places  wherein  it  oc. 
curs  in  the  Sep.  (1  Sara,  xviii.  4.)  it  is  used  for  the  robe  or  loose 
upper  garment  worn  by  Jonathan  the  son  of  Saul ;  in  the  other 
(2  Sam.  xiii.  18.)  for  that  worn  by  the  virgin  daughters  of  the 
king.  I  cannot  approve,  therefore,  the  Vul.  Er.  and  Leo  de 
Juda,  for  rendering  it  tunica  ;  nor  Cas.  who  translates  it  indii- 
stum.     I  think  Be.  has  done  better  in  making  it  amiculum. 

^  Which  he  had  laid  aside^  ;jv  yccp  'yvf^v(^.  E.  T.  For  he  was 
naked.  But  yvft.v®^  does  not  always,  like  the  Eng.  word  ?iaked, 
signify  having  no  clothes  on,  or  being  totally  uncovered,  but  not 
having  all  the  clothes  usually  worn,  particularly  not  having  his 
mantle.  In  this  sense  the  word  seems  to  be  used,  Acts,  xix.  16, 
and  in  several  passages  of  the  O.  T. 

12.  Come  and  dine,  ^ivrt,  xpti-)jFxTi.  Vul.  Er.  Zu.  Be.  Venife, 
prandete.  Cas.  Adeste  prandete.  Dod.  Come  and  i^efresh  i/our. 
selves.  Wy.  Come,  eat.  Bishop  Pearce  approves  rather.  Come 
and  breakfast,  because  it  Avas  early,  as  we  learn  from  verse  4. 
The  same  is  the  reason  w  ith  the  other  two  Eng.  interpreters  for 
departing  from  the  common  method.  I  do  not  think  it  a  good 
reason.  The  ancients  used  regularly  but  two  meals,  we  use  three. 
As  of  our  three,  dinner  and  supper  have  been  regarded  as  the  two 
principal,  it  has  obtained  not  only  with  us,  but,  I  believe,  over"^ 
all  Europe,  to  call  the  first  meal  of  the  ancients,  which  the 
Greeks  named  to  upifw,  and  the  Latins  prandium,  by  the  first  of 
the  two,  which  is  dinner,  and  the  second,  to  hizrvav  of  the  Greeks, 
and  coena  of  the  Latins,  by  the  last,  which  is  supper.  It  is  the 
order  that  has  fixed  the  names,  and  not  the  precise  time  of  the 
day  at  which  they  were  eaten.  This  is  commonly  variable,  and 
the  names  cannot  be  gradually  altered  with  the  fashions,  much 
less  can  they  be  accommodated  to  every  occasional  convenience. 
Our  ancestors  dined  at  eleven  forenoon,  and  supped  at  five  after- 
noon. But  it  will  not  be  thought  necessary  that  we  should  call 
the  breakfast  of  our  fashionable  people  dinner,  and  their  dinner 
supper,  because  they  coincide  in  time  with  those  meals  of  their 
progenitors.  To  introduce  the  name  breakfast  would  but  mis- 
lead, by  giving  a  greater  appearance  of  similarity  in  their  man. 
ners  to  our  own,  than  fact  will  justify.  Refresh  yourselves  is  a 
very  vague  expression. 


CH.  XXI.  .^.  JOHN.  503 

2  None  of  the  disciples,  aSei^  rav  fieceijrm.  Vul.  Nemo  dis- 
cumbentium,  doubtless  from  some  copy  which  has  read  xvxKcif^i' 
tui.  In  this  the  Vul.  has  only  the  concurrence  of  the  Sax.  ver- 
sion. 

3  Ventured  to  ask  him,  iroXfji.x  tliTxs-M  ccvrov.  E.  T.  Durst  ask 
him.  An.  and  Hey.  say  Offered.  Dod.  Wes.  Wor.  and  Wy.  Pre. 
sumed.  Priestley,  Thought  it  necessary.  Bishop  Pearce  has 
justly  remarked  concerning  the  verb  roXf^oiu  followed  by  an  in- 
finitive, that  it  does  not  always,  in  the  use  of  Gr.  authors,  sa. 
cred  or  profane,  express  the  boldness  or  courage  implied  in  the 
Eng.  verb  to  dare-,  by  which  it  is  commonly  rendered.  But  it  is 
equally  true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  not  a  mere  expletive. 
When  joined  with  a  negative,  as  in  this  place,  it  often  expresses 
a  disinclination  arising  from  modesty,  delicacy,  respect,  or  an 
averseness  to  be  troublesome  in  putting  unnecessary  questions. 
The  words  immediately  following,  knowing  that  it  was  the  mas. 
ter,  confirm  the  interpretation  now  given.  The  common  version, 
durst  not,  tends  to  convey  the  notion,  that  our  Lord's  manner 
of  conversing  with  his  disciples  was  harsh  and  forbidding,  than 
-which  nothing  can  be  more  contrary  to  truth.  Did  not  presume, 
is  better,  as  it  does  not  suggest  any  austerity  in  our  Lord  ;  but 
it  plainly  implies  what  is  not  implied  in  the  words ;  that,  in  the 
historian's  judgment,  there  would  have  been  presumption  in  put- 
ting the  question.  The  word  o^'ereJ  is  a  mere  expletive.  Thought 
it  necessary,  though  yielding  an  apposite  meaning  in  this  place, 
is  evidently  not  the  meaning  of  troXf^et.  The  terms  ventured  not, 
in  my  opinion,  come  up  entirely  to  the  sense  of  the  author; 
which  is,  to  express  a  backwardness  proceeding  from  no  other 
fear  than  that  which  may  be  the  consequence  of  the  most  perfect 
esteem  and  veneration.  When  those  spoken  of  are  either  ene- 
mies or  indifferent  persons,  the  verb  eroAftst  may  not  improperly 
be  rendered  presumed  or  durst.  But  that  is  not  the  case  here. 
See  Mr.  xii.  34.  N. 

15,  Lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?  etyocnrxi;  i^e  vXetov  mrm  -, 
There  is  an  ambiguity  here  in  the  original,  which,  after  the  Eng. 
translators,  I  have  retained  in  the  version.  It  may  either  mean, 
Lovest  thou  me  more  than  thou  lovest  these  things?  that  is,  thy 
boats,  nets,  and  other  implements  of  fishing,  by  which  thou  ear. 
nest  a  livelihood  ?  or,  Lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  men  [thy 
fellow-disciples]  love  me?  In  the  first  way  interpreted,  the 


504  NOTES  ON  ciu  xxi. 

question  is  neither  so  cold  nor  so  foreign,  as  some  have  represented 
it.  This  was  probably  the  last  time  that  Peter  exercised  his  pro- 
fession as  a  fisherman,  Jesus  was  about  to  employ  him  as  an 
apostle;  but,  as  he  disdained  all  forced  obedience,  and  would 
accept  no  service  that  did  not  spring  from  choice,  and  originate 
in  love,  he  put  this  question  to  give  Peter  an  opportunity  of  pro- 
fessing openly  his  love,  w  hich  his  late  transgression  had  rendered 
questionable,  and  consequently  his  preference  of  the  work  in  which 
Jesus  was  to  employ  him,  with  whatever  difficulties  and  perils  it 
might  be  accompanied,  to  any  worldly  occupation,  however  gain, 
ful.  In  the  other  way  interpreted,  the  question  must  be  consi- 
dered as  having  a  reference  to  the  declaration  formerly  made  hj 
Peter,  when  he  seemed  to  arrogate  a  superiority  above  the  rest, 
in  zeal  for  his  Master,  and  steadiness  in  his  service.  Though 
thou  shoulclst  prove  a  stnmbling-stojie  to  them  all  (says  he,  Mt. 
xxvi.  33,)  I  never  will  be  made  to  stumble.  This  gives  a  pecu- 
liar propriety  to  Peter's  reply  here.  Convinced  at  length  that 
his  Master  knew  his  heart  better  than  he  himself,  conscious  at 
the  same  time,  of  the  affection  which  he  bore  him,  he  dares  make 
the  declaration,  appealing  to  the  infallible  Judge  before  whom  he 
stood,  as  the  voucher  of  his  truth.  But,  as  to  his  fellow-disci, 
pies,  he  is  now  taught  not  to  assume  in  any  thing.  He  dares  not 
utter  a  single  word  which  would  lead  to  a  comparison  with  those, 
to  whom,  he  knew,  his  woful  defection  had  made  him  appear  so 
much  inferior.  To  the  second  interpretation  I  know  it  is  ob- 
jected, that  our  Lord  cannot  be  supposed  to  ask  Peter  a  ques- 
tion, which  the  latter  was  not  in  a  capacity  to  answer :  for, 
though  he  was  conscious  of  his  own  love,  he  could  have  no  cer- 
tain knowledge  of  the  love  of  others.  But  to  this  it  may  be  justly 
answered,  that  such  questions  are  not  understood  to  require  an 
answer  from  knowledge,  but  from  opinion,  Peter  had  once  shown 
himself  forward  enough  to  obtrude  his  opinion  unasked,  to  the 
disadvantage  of  the  rest,  compared  with  himself.  His  silence  no\^' 
on  that  part  of  the  question  which  concerned  his  fellow-disciples, 
speaks  strongly  the  shame  he  had  on  recollecting  his  former  pre- 
sumption in  boasting  superior  zeal  and  firmness  ;  and  shows  that 
the  lesson  of  humility  and  self-knowledge  he  had  so  lately  receiv. 
ed,  had  not  been  lost, — I  incline  rather  to  this  second  interpre- 
tation ;  but,  as  the  construction  will  admit  either,  and  as  neither 
of  them  is  unsuitable  to  the  context  and  the  occasion,  I  thought 
it  the  safer  method  in  a  translator,  to  give  the  expression  in  the 


S.  JOHN.  505 

same  extent  in  which  the  Evangelist  has  given  it,  and  leave  the 
choice  free  to  his  readers.     It  may  be  proper  just  to  mention  a 
third  meaning  which  has  been  put  upon  the  words,  and  of  which, 
it  must  be  owned,  they  are  naturally  susceptible:   Lovest  thou 
me  more  than  thou  lovest  these  thy  fellow-discijiles  ?  This,  in  my 
iudgment,  is  the  least  probable  of  them  all.     Our  Lord  was  so 
far  from  ever  showing  a  jealousy  of  this  kind,  lest  any  of  his 
disciples  should  rival  him  in  the  affection  of  the  rest,  that  it  was 
often  his  aim  to  excite  them,  in  the  warmest  manner,  to  mutual 
love  •  urging,  amongst  other  motives,  that  he  will  consider  their 
love  to  one  another  as  the  surest  evidence  of  their  regard  and  af. 
fection  to  him,  and  requiring  such  manifestations  of  their  love 
to  the  brethren,  as  he  had  given  of  his  love  to  them,  and  as  show 
it  to  be  hardly  possible  that  they  could  exceed  this  way. 

16    Tend  my  sheep,  -Troif-tccm  rcc  Trp^ccra  !A.ii.     E.  T.   Feed  my 
sheep      This  is  the  translation  given  also  to  the  words  ^.^^^  r« 
^foUrcc  ^«  in  the  next  verse.     But  the  precepts  are  not  synony. 
tnous.     The  latter  is  properly,  provide  them  in  pasture;  the 
former  implies  also  guide,   watch,  and  defend  them.     As  there 
is  in  the  original  some  diiference  in  every  one  of  the  three  in- 
iunctions  at  this  time  laid  on  Peter,  there  ought  to  be  a  corres- 
ponding  difference  in  the  version.     Yet  none  of  our  Eng.  inter 
preters  seem  to  have  adverted  to  this.     The  Vul.  must  have  read 
diiferently,  as  it  has  Pasce  agnos  meos.     But  in  this  reading  it 
has  not  the  support  of  a  single  MS.  and  only  the  Sax.  version. 

22,  23.  //  /  will  that  he  wait  my  return,  tccv  uvrov  ^eXa>  uau^  e^g 
cpZf^xi.     Vul.  Sic  eum  volo  manere  donee  veniam.     This  ver- 
sion,  which  totally  alters  the  sense,  has  no  support  from  Gr. 
MSS.  or  fathers,  or  from  any  ancient  translation  but  the  Sax. 
The  Cam.  verse  22.  reads,  E*y  uvrov  1^1)^6,  «r^?  i^i^m  ;  but,  as  it 
retains  £«v,  the  addition  of  «  t«?  makes  no  material  change  in  the 
sense;  whereas  the  Vul.  has,  in  both  verses,  turned  a  mere  sup- 
position into  an  affirmation.      Some  La.  MSS.  read,  agreeably 
to  the  Cam.  Si  sic  eum  volo  manere  ;  and  some,  agreeably  to  the 
common  Gr.  Si  eum  volo  manere.     The  Jesuit  Maldonat  gives 
up  the  reading  of  the  Vul.  in  this  place  entirely,  and  even  ex- 
presses himself  with  an  asperity  which  will  be  thought  surprising, 
when  it  is  considered  that  his  argument  here  hurts  not  the  Pro. 
testants,  but  his  own  friends  and  brethren  alone.  Speaking  of  the 


506  NOTES  ON,  &c.  ch.  xxi. 

three  La.  readings  given  above,  he  says,  "  Prima  est  ilia  maxime 
"  vulgaris,  quag  in  omnes  fere  Latinos  pervasit  codices,  eosque 
''  incredibili  scriptorum  negligentia  contaminavit,  Stc  eum  volo 
"  manere  donee  ventam,  quid  adte  ?  nulla  prorsus  specie  proba- 
"  bilitatis,"  &c.  Where  is  now  the  merit  which  this  son  of 
Loyola  boasted  (Avhen,  commenting  on  a  passage  liable  to  the  like 
objections)  of  resigning  entirely  his  own  judgment  in  deference 
to  the  authority  of  the  church?  Ch.  viii.  1 — 11.  N.  There  indeed, 
after  candidly  admitting  the  weight  of  the  arguments  on  the  op- 
posite side,  he  replies  in  this  manner:  "  Sed  haec  omnia  minus 
"  habent  ponderis  quam  una  auctoritas  ecclesiae,  quae  per  con- 
"  cilium  Tridentinum,  non  solum  libros  omnes,  quos  nunc  habet 
"  in  usu,  sed  singulas  etiam  ejus  partes,  tanquam  canonicas  ap. 
^'  probavit."  Had  this  good  father  forgotten  that  the  reading 
*'  Sic  eum  volo  manere,"  which  he  so  disdainfully  reprobates, 
has  the  sanction  of  the  council  of  Trent,  for  it  had  been  the  com. 
mon  reading  of  the  Vul.  long  before,  and  was  in  all  their  approv. 
ed  editions  at  the  time?  Had  he  forgotten  that  it  was  first  ratified 
by  Pope  Sixtus  the  fifth,  after  the  revisal  appointed  by  him,  and 
then  by  Pope  Clement  the  eighth,  after  a  second  revisal  appoint- 
ed by  him  ?  Not  one  passage  in  the  Vul.  can  claim  the  authority 
of  Popes  and  Councils,  if  this  cannot. 

25.  /  imagine  the  world  itself  would  not  contain. — I  agree 
prefectly  with  those  interpreters  who  think  that  the  hyperbole 
contained  in  this  verse  is  much  more  tolerable,  than  the  torture 
to  which  some  critics  have  put  the  words,  in  order  to  make  them 
speak  a  different  sense.  For  some  apposite  examples  of  such 
liyperboles,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  profane,  I  refer  the 
reader  to  Bishop  Pearce.  For  a  refutation  of  the  opinion  of  Ham. 
who  seems  to  think  that  the  two  last  verses  were  not  written  by 
the  Evangelist,  but  by  the  Asiatic  bishops,  and  of  the  opinion  of 
Gro.  and  L.  CI.  who  think  that  the  whole  last  chapter  is  of  an- 
other hand,  I  refer  him  to  Wetstein. 

END  OF  VOLUME  FOURTH. 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


IN  THE  OTHER  BOOKS  OF  SCRIPTURE,  AND  THE  APOCRYPHAL  AVRITINGS, 
OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


In  the  References  to  the  Preliminary  Dissertations,  D.  means 
Dissertation,  P.  Part,  N.  Note.  In  the  References  to  the 
Notes  on  the  Gospels,  the  chapter  and  verse  of  the  Gospel, 
and  the  number  of  the  Note,  when  there  are  more  Notes  than 
one  on  the  same  verse,  are  marked  in  the  same  manner  as  in 
the  Notes  themselves.  The  Prefaces  to  the  Gospels  thus ;  Pr. 
Mt.  Pr.  Mr.  Pr.  L.  Pr.  J. 

GENESIS. 

I.  1—5.      .        -        .         .     D.  III.  §  4—9 

—  11.  -         -         -         -     Mt.  vi.  30. 

—  16.  ...         -     L.  ix.  48. 

II.  1.  .         -         -         -     D.  III.  §8. 

—  4.  -  -  "  -  Mt.  i.  1. 

—  23.  -  -  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §4. 

—  24.  -  -  _  -  Mt.  xix.  5. 
VI.  9.  -  -  -  -  L.  xvi.  8.  3. 

XIII.  4.       -  -  -  -  J.  viii.  25. 

XIV.  13.     -  -  -  -  Pr.  Mt.  §  15. 
XVII.  10,  &c.  -  -  -  J.vii.  22. 

12.  -  -  -  Mt.  ii.  16.  3. 

XXII.  I.     -        -        -         -     Mt.  iv.  7.  ^ 

XXIII.  3,  &c.      -        -         -     D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  6. 

XXIV.  3.  ...     Mt.  xxvi.  63. 
18.            ...     D.  VII.  P.  I.  §7. 


54.  56.  59.         -  -     Mt.  vi.  13. 


XXVI.  19.  ...  J.  iv.  10.  2. 

XXVII.  30,  8cc.  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  4. 

XXVIII.  10,  &c.  -         -  J.  V.  2.  ^ 

XXXI.  35.  ...  D.VII.P.  I.  §8 

XXXII.  4,  5.       -        -        -  Ibid. 

XXXIII.  5.  8.      -        -         -  D.  VII.  P.I.  §  6. 


508 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS. 


XXXV.  18. 

. 

_ 

. 

Mt.  xxvii.  50. 

XXXVII.  35. 

- 

_ 

. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §S. 

XXXIX.  17. 

- 

_ 

_ 

Mt.  ii.  16. 

XLI.  2,  3. 

- 

_ 

. 

J.  ii.  14.  2. 

XLII.  10. 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  6. 

'iS 

. 

_ 

- 

D.VI.  P.  II.  §3. 

XLIII.  18.  20. 

. 

_ 

_ 

J.  viii.  25. 

XLIV.  18. 

. 

- 

- 

D.  VII.  P.  I.§  6. 

XLV.  8.       - 

- 

- 

, 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  32. 

26.       - 

. 

. 

- 

Mr.  iii.  21.  ". 

XLVIII.  20. 

_ 

_ 

_ 

J.  i.  15.  ^ 

XLIX.  3,  4. 

- 

- 

_ 

L.  ii.  23. 

L.  2.  5. 

- 

- 

- 

J.  xix.  40. 

EXODUS. 

XII.  6. 

_ 

_ 

- 

Mr.  XV.  42. 

14.       - 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xiv.  23. 

27.      - 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  4. 

46.       - 

. 

. 

- 

Mt.  i.  22. 

XV.  2. 

- 

. 

- 

J.  xi.  25. 

— —  3. 

- 

- 

_ 

Mr.  xii.  29. 

XVI.  5.23. 

- 

_ 

. 

J.  xix.  14. 

XVII.  7.      - 

- 

- 

_ 

Mt.  iv.  7.  2. 

XVIII.  7.    - 

-    • 

- 

_ 

Mt.  ii.  2.  =. 

XIX.   10.   14.  22 

. 

- 

. 

D.VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

XXIV.  17. 

- 

- 

- 

J.  V.  37,  38. 

LEVITICUS. 

X.  1,  &c.     - 

_ 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

XI.  42,  8cc. 

- 

- 

- 

§  11.  16. 

—  43,  &c. 

. 

.. 

- 

L.  xiv.  26.  ^ 

XII.  3. 

. 

- 

- 

Mt.  ii.  16.  3.     J.  vii.  22 

XIV.  5.         - 

. 

. 

- 

J.  iv.  10.  2, 

XX.  25,  26. 

- 

- 

. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

XXI.   1—6. 

- 

- 

_ 

Ibid. 

XXII.  32.  - 

- 

- 

. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

XXIV.  11.  14. 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  12. 

1  *;    16 

e  1  n 

5  .<v. 

NUMBERS. 

III.  32.        - 

- 

- 

- 

J.  XV.  18. 

V.  17. 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

—  22. 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  18. 

IX.  12. 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  i.  22. 

—  15,  16.    - 

- 

- 

. 

J.  V.  37,  38. 

XII.  8. 

. 

- 

. 

Ibid. 

XV.  37. 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  ix.  20. 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


,^09 


XV.  38,  39. 

XIX.  7,  8,  10. 

XX.  10.        - 

—  12. 

XXII.  29.  - 
XXIV.  7.  - 
XXXIL  19. 

24. 

XXXIIL  55. 


IV.  12.  15. 
VI.  4. 
— 8  . 

VIII.  3.       - 
X.  16. 

XVI.  2.       - 
XVIII.  10,  11. 

20. 

XXII.  12.    - 

19. 

23,  24. 

XXIII.  12,  &c. 
XXiV.  1,  2. 

XXV.  I.     . 

XXVII.  4. 
XXX.  11—14. 

XXXII.  4. 

17. 

22. 

XXXIII.  8. 


II.  9.24.     - 

III.  5. 
VII.  13.       - 

18,  19. 

XV.  8. 

XX.  7. 

XXI.  32.      - 

XXIII.  13. 

XXIV.  19. 


L  16. 
IX.  7. 

VOL.    IV. 


-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §2. 

-  L.  ii.  22. 

.         -  Pr.  Mt.  §  25. 

-  D.VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

-  Ml.  ii.  16. 

-  J,  vii,  38. 

-  Mt.iv.  15. 

-  4. 

-  Mt.  vii.  3, 

DEUTERONOMY. 

-  J.  V.  37,  38. 

-  Mr.  xii.  29. 

-  Mt.  xxiii.  5. 

-  Mt.  iv.  4. 

-  D.  IV.  §  22. 

-  J   xix.  14. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  15. 

-  J.  vii.  52.  2, 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  2.  Mt.  ix.  29. 

-  L.  vi.  22.  2. 

-  Mt.  i.  19.  ». 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §10. 

-  Mt.  i.  19.  3. 

-  Mt.  xxvii.  24. 

-  Mt.  xxii.  24. 

-  J.  iv.  20. 

-  L.  xvii.  21. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  19. 

-  P.  I.  §  15. 

- P.  II.  §6. 

-  P.  IV.  §  6. 

JOSHUA. 

-  Mt.  XV.  32. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

-  Ibid. 

-  J.  ix.  24. 

-  D.  VLP.  II.§  1. 

-  P.  IV.  §  12. 

-  J.  iv.  5. 

-  Mt.  vii.  3. 

-  D.  VLP.  IV.  §  U. 

JUDGES. 

-  Mr.  i.  3. 

-  Mt.  vi.  30. 


64 


610 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


XVI.  10. 

XVII.  3. 


1. 11. 

II.  4. 


I.  23. 

IV.  7,  8.      - 

—  17. 

VI.  20. 

VII.  9. 
XIV.  45.  - 
XVIII.  4.  - 
XXI.  6.  - 
XXIV  6.  - 
XXV.  21.  - 
XXVIII.  7,  &c. 
• -23. 


I.  17. 
—  20. 

XI.  11. 

XII.  14. 

XIII.  18. 


I.  14. 
IV.  33. 
XIV.  6.        - 
XVIII.  7.9.  13. 
31,  Sec. 


I.  7,  8. 

II.  13. 

—  19. 
IV.  16. 

—  28. 

VI.  21. 

VII.  2.  17.  19. 


-  Mt.  ii.  16. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

RUTH. 

-  J.  XV.  6, 

-  L.  i.  28.  2, 

I  SAMUEL. 

-  Mt.  iv.  4. 

-  L.  vi.  24,  25,  26. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  1. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  19. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  II.  §.  7. 

-  Mt.  xvi.  22.  3. 

-  J.  xxi.  7. 

-  Mt.  xii.  4. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §1. 

-  L.  XX.  13. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  15. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §3 

II  SAMUEL. 

-  Mt.  xi.  17. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IL§1. 

-  D.  vn.p.  L  §7. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  11. 

-  J.  xxi.  7. 

I  KINGS, 

-  Mt.  i.  22. 

-  J.  xix.  29. 

-  Mt.  X.  2. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  6,  7. 

-  P.  II   §7. 

-  Mt.  vii.  15.  2, 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §1. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  L  §  7. 

-  D.IX.  P.  n.§8, 

II  KINGS. 

-  Mt.  vii.  15.  2. 

-  Ibid. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

■ §6. 

.         - §7. 

-  Ibid. 

-  Ibid. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


511 


XVIII.  30.3,3,  Sec. 

XIX.  4.  16.  22.  23. 

xxn.  6.    - 

XXIII.  10. 


V.  1,2.        - 
Xi.  11. 
—  19. 
XVL  22.     - 
XXIV.  3,  8cc.      - 

IL  14,  15.    - 
IV.  5. 
XXIV.  12. 
XXVI.  3.    - 

XXIX.  5,  Sec.      - 

XXX.  16,  17,  18. 

XXXIII.  6. 

XXXIV.  11. 

XXXV.  7,  8,9.  11. 

XXXVI.  22. 


III.  7. 

VIIL  25.  - 

III.  1,  32.  - 

VIII.  8.  - 

XII.  39.  - 

46. 

XIIL  25.  - 


IV.  13. 

V.  10. 

VI.  12. 
VIL9. 


III.  8. 
IX.  21.  23. 
XL  7,  8,  9. 
XXXI.  7.    - 
XXX  VIIL  17, 
XXXIX.  9. 


-  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  10. 

-  _§  12. 

-  Mt.  xiii.  55. 

-  D.  VI.P.  II.  §1. 

I  CHRONICLES. 

-  L.  ii.  23. 

-  J.  XV.  18. 

-  Mt.  xvi.22.  3. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  2. 

-  L.  i.  5. 

II  CHRONICLES. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  L  §  7. 

-  J.  ii.  6. 

-  Mt.  xiii.  55. 

-  Mt.  i.  8. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  10. 
- §11. 

P.  II.  §  1. 


-  Mt.  xiii.  55. 

-  J.  xix.  14. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  2. 

EZRA. 

-  Mt.  xiii,  55. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  L§7. 

NEHEMIAII. 

-  J.  V,  2.  2. 

-  D.  X.  P.V.  §4. 

-  J.v.  2.  ^ 

-  J^xv,  18. 

-  Mt.  XV.  4. 

ESTHER. 

-  L.  xiv.  26.  2. 

-  L.  ii.  49. 

-  Ibid. 

-  Ibid. 

JOB. 

-  Mt.  iii.  7. 

-  L.  xii.  25. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  7. 

-  J.  "XX.  17. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  9. 

-  L,  iL  7. 


J.  xix.  14. 


5l2 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


I.  6. 

II.  2. 
IV.  1. 
XVI.  8.        , 

. .  10.       - 

XX.  1.  r.  . 

XXXIV.  18. 
XXXVII.  11.  29. 
XXXIX.  3. 

5. 

XLI.  1.       -  .      . 
XLIX.  2.    - 
LXIII.  title. 

1.    - 

LXVII.  2.  - 
LXXIil.  9. 
LXXVl.l. 
LXXXII.  6. 
LXXXVl.  2. 
XCV.  8.      - 
XCVI.  5.    - 
XCVIII.  3. 
XCIX.  3.    - 
CII.  25. 

cm.  1.     - 

CIV.  4. 
CV.  15.        - 
CVI.  7.       . 

16.      - 

CIX.  16.      - 

22.       - 

CXI.  9. 
CXVIII.26. 
CXXXI.  2. 
CXXXII.  17. 
CXXXIX.  8. 
CXLV.  17. 


V.  4. 

VI.  32. 
VIII.  passim. 
XIV.  4.      - 
XVII.  15.  - 
20. 


XXI.  12. 


PSALMS. 

-  D.  IV.  §21. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §3,  4. 

-  D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  19. 

-  D.  IV.  §  20. 

-  D.  Vl.P.  11.  §3.  11. 

-  J.  xvii.  11. 

-  Mt.  V.  3.  3. 

-  5.  ^ 

-  L.  xvii   21. 

-  L.  xii.  25. 

-  Mt.  xiii.  19. 

-  D.V.  P.  IV.  §  13. 

-  Mr.  i.  3. 

-  Mt.  V.  6. 

.  D.  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

.  D.V.  P.  I.  §4. 

-  J.  xvii.  11. 

-  J.  X.  35. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  15. 

-  D.  IV.  §22. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  15. 
.  L.  i.  54,  55.  ^ 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

-  Mt.  XXV.  34. 
.      -  L.  xvii.  21. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  10. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  2. 

-  Mt.  xiii.  19. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §5. 

-  L.  i.  54,55.  ^. 

-  L.  xvii.  21. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  12.     Mt.  xi.  S. 

-  L.  xiv.  26.  2. 

-  J.  v.  35. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  7. 

-  P.  IV.  §  19. 

PROVERBS. 

-  Mt.  xxvii.  34. 

-  Mt.  V.  28. 

-  J.  i.  1. 

-  L.  ii.  7. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §1 7.  Mt.  xxvii.  24. 

-  D.  IV.  §  22. 

-  Mt.  xiii.  19. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


51' 


XXIII.  1. 

XXIV.  10. 

XXIX.  24. 

XXX.  30. 


V.2. 
VIII.  11. 


L  8.  - 
III.  10. 
VIII.  6. 


XXX.  24.    - 
XXXIV.  13. 

XXXVIII.  10. 

XL.  3. 

30,  31. 

XLI.  7. 
XLII.  1. 

18.      - 

XLV.  1.      - 
XLVIII.  13. 
LII.  7. 
LIII.  8. 


-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  S. 

-  Mt.  XV.  32. 

-  L.  xiv.  26.  2. 

-  L.  i.  28.  3. 

ECCLESIASTES. 

-  L.ii.  14. 

-  L.  i.  1. 

CANTICLES. 

-  L.  i.  28.  3. 

-  L.  xvii.  21. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  10. 

ISAIAH. 

-  L.  ii.  7. 

-  L.  xvi.  21. 

-  D.  XI.  P.  L  §  19. 

-  D.  X.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

-  Mt.  xxvii.  34. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §8. 

-  L.  xxiii.  54.    J.  i.  1.  *. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

-  P.  II.  §  15.D.  L  P.IL  §3. 

-  Mt.  ii.  23.  2. 

-  Mt.  xi.  25.  2. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II. §8. 

-  L.  xxii.  36. 

-  L.  xvii.  21. 

-  D.  I.P.II.§3.D.VLP.II.§15. 
-■  J.  vii.  15. 

-  L.  vi.  35, 

-  Mt.  iii.  12. 

-  Mt.  xxvii.  29. 

-  D.  VLP.  II.  §  17. 

-  P.  V.  §  4. 

-  Mt.  XV.  32. 

-  Mt.  xiii.  55. 

-  L.  xxiii.  35. 

-  Mt.  xii.  20. 

-  Mr.  viii  24. 

.  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  2. 

-  Mt.  XXV.  34. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  3. 

-  L.  xvi.  8.  3. 


514 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


LIII.  9.      f 
LV.  1,2.    - 

3. 

LVIII.  2.    - 
LIX.  17.     - 

LXI    i,  2.   - 

LXIII.  18. 
LXV.  5.      - 
LXVI.  24. 


I.  5.  - 
IV.  13. 
VI.  4. 

IX.  17,  18.20. 
XII.  3. 

XXXIX.  11.  13. 
XLIV.  17.  - 
XLIX.  36. 


III.  15. 
V.  16. 


III.  7. 

XXXIX.  17—20. 

XLI.  6. 


I.  3.  7,  8,  9.  18.  - 

II.  18,  19.27,  28, 

—  44. 
IV.  9. 

—  26. 

VII.  13,  14. 

VIII.  1.        - 

IX.  25,  26. 

X.  16. 


I.  1,  2. 
XI.  1. 


II.  6. 
VI.  4. 


-  D.  XII.  P.  II.  §14. 

-  Mt.  V.  6. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  4. 

-  L.  xvi.  21. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  2. 

CD.  V.  P.  II.  §  2.    P.  IV.  §8. 
*      ^D.  VI.  P.  V.  §5. 

-  D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  19. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

-  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §30. 

JEREMIAH. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §13. 

-  ,L.  vi.  24,  25,  26. 

-  Ibid.  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §12. 

-  Mt.  xi.  17.     L.  xxii.  36. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  12. 
-        -  D.  VII.  P.II.  §  4. 

-  Mt.  iv.  4. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  11. 

LAMENTATIONS. 

-  Mt.  xxvii.  34, 

-  L.  vi.  24,  25,  2fl. 

EZEKIEL. 

-  D.  IV.  §  22. 

-  L.  xxii.  36. 

-  J.  XX.  17. 

DANIEL. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  II.  §4. 

29,  30.  47.     D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  4. 

-  D.  V.  P.  L§1. 
§  4. 

-  D.  V.  P.  I.  §  4. 

-     §  1.  ScP.  IV.  §  IS. 

-  J.  viii.  25. 

.    D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  3. 

-  L.  xvii.  21. 

HOSEA. 

-  Mr.  i.  1. 

-  Mt.  i.  22. 

AMOS. 

-  Mt.  X.  10.  '. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  in.  §  3, 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  515 

VlII  6        -         -         -         -     Mt.  X.  10.  3, 
IX.  2,3.      -        -         -        -    D.VI.  P.  XL  §7. 

JONAH. 
I  6   -  -        -        -        -    D.  VII.  §4. 

in.  2.  .  -  .  -     D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  28 

MICAH. 
HI  5  .        .        .        -    D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

IV.  6,  r.    -      -      -      -   D.  V.P.I.  §  1. 

V.  2. Mt.  ii.  6.  2. 

vi.  3.  8.      -        -        -        -    Mt.  vi.  33. 

HABAKKUK. 

in.  2.  -         -         -  -     L.  i.  54,55.  2, 

ZECHARIAH. 
I,  20.  ....     Mt.  xiii.  55. 

XI.  12,  13.  .         -         -     Mt.  xxvii.  9,  10. 

XIII.  4.       .         -         -         -    Mt.  vii.  15.  ^. 

MALACHI. 
III.  1.         .        ,        -        -    D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  15. 

ACTS. 
L  4.  8.        -        -        -        -  D-  V.  P.  II.  §  14- 
6. Mt.  xvii.  11. 

13  .         _  -  -  Mt.  i.  6. 

__  16  .  -  .  -  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  18. 

11.23.  -  -  -  -  D.  IV.  §21.     Mt.  xxvi.  45.  ^ 

_25*  -  .  -  -  §20. 

_  27  31      -         -         -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  3.  11,  12. 

—  38.       *    -  -         -         -  P.  III.  §7. 

III.  16.         -  -  -  -  Mr.xi.  22. 

__  19.           .         -          .          -  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  7. 
21.          .        -        -        -  Mt.  xvii.  11. 

IV.  1.  -         -         -         -  L.  xxii.  52. 

_4. L.  i.  2. 

_6-         -         -         -         -L.  iii.  2. 

—  26,27.    -         -         -          -  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §4. 
__-  32.           .         .          -          -  J.  V.  18. 


oo. 


L.  li.  40. 


V.  24.  26.  -  -  -  -  L.  xxii.  52. 

—  33.  -  -  -  -  J.  xii.  10, 

—  34.  -  -  -  -  D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  6, 
39.  -  -  -  -  Mt.  XXV.  9. 

VI.  1,  8cc.  -  -  -  -  D.  LP.  I.  §6. 


516  INDEX  OF  TEXtS 

VI.  4.  ....  L.  i.  2. 

—  U.  -  -        -        -  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  8. 

—  13.  ...          -  §14, 

VII.  10.  20.  -          -          -  L.  ii.  40. 

, 53.  -  .          -          -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  12. 

59.  ....  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  23. 

VIII.  4.  -  -          -          -  L.  i.  2. 

— -22.  -  -      -      -  D.  IV.  §  23.  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §r, 

35.  -  -          -          -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 

39.  -  -         -         -  Mt.  iii.  1 1 . 

IX.  29.  -  -         -          -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  6. 

—  31.  -  -         -         -  J.  xiv.  16. 

—  37.  -  -         -         -  J.  ix.  7. 
X   22.  -  .         -         .  Mt.  ii.  12. 

—  38.  ....  D.VI.  P.  I.  §9. 

—  44.  -  -          -         -  L.  i.  2. 

—  45.  -  -          -          -  J.  XX.  27. 

XI.  18.  -  -      -      -  D.  VI.  P.m.  §r. 

—  19.  -  -        -        -  L.  i.  2. 

—  20.  -  -        -         -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  6. 

—  26.  ....  D.  IX.  P.I. §  10.    Mt.  ii.  12. 

XII.  5.  -  -        -        -  L.  vi.  12. 

XIII.  2.  .  -         -        -  D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  12. 

10.  -  -        -        -  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §3. 

22.  -  -          -          -  L.  iv.  22. 

25.  -  -          -          -  L.  xii.  25. 

34.  ...  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  4. 

42.  .  -          -          -  P.  V.  §  12. 

43.  -  -          -          -  J.  i.  17. 

45.  -  -          -          -  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  12. 

50.  -  -         -         -  L.  xiv.  1. 

XIV.  15.  ....  D.IV.  §25. 

23.  -  -          -          -  D.  X.  P.V.  §7. 

25.  ....  L.  i.2. 

XV.  37.  -  -         -  J.  xii.  10. 

XVI.  I.  -  -         -         -  J.  XX.  27. 

6.  .  -          -         -  L.  i.  2. 

13.  16.  -         -         -  L.  vi.  12. 

30.  .  -         -          -  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §7. 

_^— .  33  -  -         -         "J.  ix.  7. 

XVII.  3.  -  -        -        -  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  6. 
4,  -  -         -        -  L.  xiv.  1. 

11.  -  -        -        -  L.  i.  2. 

—  13.  -  -        -        -  Mt.  XV.  1. 

19.22.  -          -          -  D.  VIII.  P.m.  §  18. 

18.  -  -         -          -  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §12,  13.  17. 

23.  .  -          . §22. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


517 


XXVII.  20. 

40. 

XXVIII.  7. 


17. 
31. 


D.  VI.  P.  IIL§7. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  12. 

L.  ii.  2.  ^ 

L.  i.  3.  -. 

Mt.  xvi.  22. 

J.  xxi.  7.  ^. 

D.  VI.P.  V.  §  12. 

Mt.  xxviii.  9. 

D.  VI.  P.m.  §  7. 

D,  V.  P,  II.  §  16.    L.  xu.  25. 

J.  i.  17. 

D.  VL  P.  V.  §  16. 

D.  IV.  §  20. 

L.  xxii.  66. 

D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  13. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  23.  Mt.  xxii.  23.. 

D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §2,  3,4. 

L.  xiv.  1. 

L.  xxiii.  15. 

D.  VI.  P.  I.§  22. 

D.  IV.  §21.  D.  IX.  P.  IV.§  1. 

D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  13. 

D.X.  P.  IV.  §  15. 

D.  VI.  P.m.  §7. 

J.  vii.  15. 

L.  xxiii.  15. 

Mt.  xxvi.  45. 

L.  iv.  42.2. 

J.  XV.  18. 

L.  xiv.  1.  J.  i.  15.  ?. 

D.  VI.  P.  V.  §7. 


21,  22. 
22    26. 


ROMANS. 

-  D.  XI.  P.I.  §7. 

-  D.V.P.II.§  19.D.  XLP.I.  §15. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §9. 

-  P.  V.  §10. 

-  Mt.  xiii.  19. 

-  Mt.  vi.  33. 

-  Mr.  xi  22. 

-  L.  i.  1. 

-  Mt.  xi.  25.  ». 

-  Mt.  ii.  12. 

-  D.  VI.P.  IV,  §7. 

-  "L.  vi.  12. 

-  L.  iv.  22. 

-  Mt.  vi.  23. 


65 


518  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 

X.  6,  7.       -         -         -         -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  14.    L.  xvii.  21' 

—  10.  -         -  -  -  D.  IV.  §  23. 

—  15.  ...  -  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  3,  4,  5. 

—  16,  17.    -  -  -  -  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15. 

XI.  2.  ....  D.  IV.  §21. 

—  14.         .        -        .        -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  11.  N. 

—  22.  -  .  -  -  Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

—  29.  ....  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §9. 

XII.  3.  6.    .  .  -  -  D.  IV.  §  13,  14. 

XIV.  5.       .         .        .        -  L.i.  1.     D.  IX.  P.  III.  §  5. 

17.      .         -         -         -  L.  xvii.  21. 

22,23.  -  -         -  D.  IV.  §  14.D.  IX.  P.  III.  §  5. 

XV.  30.      -         -        -         -  L.  vi.  12. 

XVI.  17.     .         -         .         -  D.IX.  P.  IV.  §  11. 

-25,26.  .         -         -  D.V.P.II.  §20.D.IX.P.  I.  §3. 

I  CORINTHIANS. 

I.  10.  ....  D.  IX.  P.  III.  §  4. 

—  17.  -  .  -  -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  10. 

—  21.  ...        -  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  10. 

—  30.  .         -  -  -  J.  xi.  25. 

11.4,5.       ....  D.VI.P.V.§10.D.I.P.I.  UO 

—  7—10.     -         -         -         -  D.  IX.  p.  I.  §3. 

—  14.  -  -  .  -  J.  iii.  3.  2. 

III.  2.  -  -         .         -  L.  i.  64. 

—  3. D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  8. 

—  11.  -  -         -         -  D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  U, 

IV.  1.  ....  D.  IX.  P.  I.§  6. 

—  6.  -  -  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  8. 

V.  2..  -  .  -  -  Mt.  V.  6. 

VI.  3.  -  -         -         -  Mt.  xii.  23. 

—  12,  -  -         -  -  L.  xxii.  25. 

VII.  2.         -  -         -         -  J.  V.  18. 

-  J.  XX.  27. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  U 

-  J.  iii.  21. 

-  D.  IV.  §21. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  15. 

-  J.  viii.  51. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  19. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  6. 

-  Mt.  xiv.  19. 

-  Mt.  xxvi.  26. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §14—18. 

-  D.Vfll.P.  III.§  12. 

-  D    IX.  P.  IV.  §  8. 

-  D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  12. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  519 


XIV.  2.  12 

_ 

_ 

. 

D.  XII.  P.  IV.  §9. 

11. 

. 

_ 

. 

- 

D.  I.  P.  I.  §  14. 

32. 

- 

_ 

-■ 

- 

P.  II.  §  3. 

XV.  54. 

, 

. 

- 

- 

L.  ii  2.  \ 

55. 

. 

. 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  18.  23. 

XVL  11. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xi.  7. 

II  CORINTHIANS. 

I.  17. 

_ 

. 

. 

- 

J.  xii.  10, 

—  20. 

_ 

_ 

_ 

- 

Mt.  V.  57. 

III.  14. 

. 

« 

- 

- 

D.  V.  P.  in.  §  3. 

IV.  2. 

_ 

- 

- 

- 

J.  i.  17. 

—  16. 

_ 

. 

. 

- 

Mt.  XV.  32. 

—  17. 

. 

. 

. 

- 

D.  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

V.  6,  &c. 

_ 

. 

. 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  II   §23. 

—  13. 

_ 

. 

. 

- 

Mr.  iii.  21.  \ 

VL  1. 

- 

- 

• 

- 

J.  i.  17. 

—  2. 

, 

. 

- 

- 

L.  xxii.  51. 

VIL  1. 

.. 

. 

. 

- 

D.  I.  P.  I.  §  11.  N.  3. 

3. 

. 

_ 

. 

- 

D.  IV.  §21. 

4. 

. 

_ 

_ 

. 

Mt.  X.  30. 

8.  10. 

_ 

. 

. 

D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  9. 

VIIL  18. 

. 

. 

. 

- 

D.  V.P.II.  §  19. 

XII.  l,&c. 

. 

. 

■- 

- 

D.  VI,  P.  II.  §  21.  23 

7. 

. 

. 

- 

- 

Mt.  vii.  3. 

18. 

_ 

_ 

- 

. 

Mt.  xii.  23. 

XIII.  8. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J.  i.  17. 

GALATIANS. 

I.  1. 

. 

_ 

. 

- 

Mt.  X.  2. 

—  23. 

_ 

_ 

. 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 

11.  2.  7. 

_ 

. 

- 

- 

D.  V.  P.  II.  §  20. 

_ 

. 

- 

- 

Mt.  i.  19. 

—  15. 

_ 

_ 

. 

- 

Mt.  xxvi.  45.  -. 

—  16.  20. 

_ 

_ 

- 

- 

Mr.  xi.  22. 

—  21. 

. 

_ 

- 

- 

J.  i.  17. 

III.  1. 

. 

_ 

_ 

- 

Ibid. 

—  3. 

_ 

. 

- 

D.  LP.  I.  §  11.  N. 

—  9. 

_ 

. 

- 

J.  XX.  27. 

—  19. 

. 

. 

. 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.m.  §  12. 

—  22. 

_ 

- 

. 

- 

Mr.  xi.  22. 

IV.  4. 

. 

- 

- 

- 

L.  i.  35. 

—  9. 

_ 

. 

- 

- 

J.  iii.  3. 

—  19. 

. 

. 

. 

- 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

—  22,  8cc, 

- 

- 

- 

n.  IX.  p.  I.  §  7. 

V.  4.  7. 

. 

- 

- 

- 

J.i.  17. 

—  12. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

520  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 

V.  19,20,21.       -        -         -    D.I.P.I.§ll.N.D.IX.P.lV.§n/ 

VI.  9.  -         -         .  .     Mt.  XV.  32. 

EPHESIANS. 
1.9.  ....    D.  IX.  P.  r.  §3.  11. 

—  13.  -        -         -        -    D.  V.  P.  II.  §  16. 

II.  12.  -  -  -  -     D.  VI.  P.I.  §  16 


20. 


D.  VII.P.  II.  §  11. 


HI.  3.  5,  6.  9.       -  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §3. 

—  7.  -         -         -         -  J.  iv.  10. 

—  13.  -         -  -  -  Mt.  XV.  32. 

—  18.  -  -         -         -  L.  xi.  7. 

IV.  7.  ....  J.  iv.  10. 

—  11.          -         -        -        -  D.VI.P.V,  §16. 

—  18 D.  IV.  §  23.  N. 

—  20 D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  12. 

—  21 J.  i.  17. 

—  29 L.ii.40. 

V.  32.         -        -        -        .  D.IX  P.  I.§7.D.X.  P.m.  §9 

VI.  19.         ...  .  _§3. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

I.  21,  &c.    -  .  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  23. 

II.  10.  .  .  .  _  §  6. 

in.  9.  ....  Mr.  xi.  22. 

IV.  6.  -         -         .         _  Mt.  vi.  25. 

—  15.  -         -  -  .  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  19. 

COLOSSIANS. 

I.  20.  -  -  .  .  Mt.  V.  9. 

—  26,27.    .  .         .  -  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §3. 

II.  22.  -  -         .         .  Mt.  XV.  9. 

III.  8.  ....  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  13. 

IV.  6.         -         -        .        .  L.ii.  40. 

I  THESSALONIANS. 

I.  3.    -         -'        -         -         .  Mr.  xi.  22. 

II  THESSALONIANS. 

I.  12.  -  .         -         .  J.  i.  17. 

II- r D.  IX.  p.  I.  §4, 

—  11.  -         -         -        -  Mt.  vi.  13. 

—  12.  -        -         -         -  Mr.  xvi.  16.  3.  J,  i.  17. 

—  15.           ...         -  Pr.  Mt.  §8. 
III.  8.           *          -         -          -  Mt.  vi.  25.. 


OqCASIONALLY  ILLXJSTRATED.  521 

I  TIMOTHY. 

-  D.IX.P.II.§13.D.X.P.V,§11. 

-  J.  XV.  18. 

-  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §4. 

-  P.  I.  §2. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §  11.  13. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  20. 

-  J.  i.  17. 

-  J.  XX.  27. 

-  Mr.  vii.  2. 

-  L.  i.  3. 

-  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8. 

-  D.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

-  Mt.  vi.  25. 

-  Mt.  xii.  36. 

-  J.  XX.  27. 

-  J.i.  16. 

-  J.  XX.  27. 

II  TIMOTHY. 

-  Mt.  xxiv.  13.  3. 

-  J.i.  17. 
-         -  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  2. 

-  L.  i.  3.  ^. 

-  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

-  J.i.  17. 

-  L.  i.  3. 

-  J.  vii.  15. 

IV.  2.  .         -         -         -  D.VI.  P.  V.  §  10.  L.  i.  2. 

4.        -         -         -         -  J.i.  17. 

5.         .  -         -  .  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  16.    L.  i.  1. 

7.        -         -        -         -  L.  xii.  25. 

8.         -         -         T         -  Mt.  xxvi.  45. 

17,      -         »        -         -  L.  i.  1. 

TITUS. 

I.  8.  -         -         -         -        -  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  7.  17, 
— .12.           -         -         -         -  Mt.  xii.  36. 

—  14,  -         -         -         -.  J.  i.  17. 

II.  3. D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  2. 

—  11.  -         -         -         -  D.  X.  P.  V.§  8.  N.  J.  i.  17. 

III.  10,  11.  ...  D.  ;X.  P.  IV.  §  1 1,  13. 

HEBREWS. 

1.2. J.i.  S. 


522  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 

I.  3. D.  X.  P.  V.  §  9. 

—  4,  &c.     -        -        -        -    D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  10,  11. 

—  7. L.  xix.  9. 

III.  1.  -  -  -  -     J.  X.  36. 

IV.  2.  -         -  -  -     D.  V.  P.  II.  §  6. 

9.  -         -         -         -     Mt.  V.  5.  2. 

V.  7.  ...         -     L.  vi.  12. 

VI.  4.  ...         -     J.  iv.  10. 

VII.  21 D.  VI.  P.  III.  §9. 

26.      -  -  -  -  P.  IV.  §  7. 

IX.  9;  ....     Mt.  xiii.  3. 

—  10.  ...         -  D.  II.  P.  II.  §  7.    Mr.  vii.  4. 

—  16,  17.   -        -        -        -     D.  V.  P.  III.§  1. 

X.  13.         -        -         -        -  Mt.  xxvi.  25. 

—  23.  -         -         -  -  J.  ix.  7. 

—  26.  -  -         -  -  J.  i.  17. 

—  36.  ....  L.  viii.  15. 

—  37.  ...         -  Mt.  xi.  3. 

—  38.  -  -  -  -  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  10. 

XI.  11.        -        -        -         -  L.  xh.  25. 

—  13.  -         -         -         -  D.  XII.  P.  I.§  14. 

—  19.  ....  Mt.  xiii.  3. 

—  37.  ....  Mt.  vii.  15,  2. 

XII.  3.         -         -         -         -  L.  viii.  15. 

. 17.       -  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  4. 

25.       -         -         -         -  Mr.  ii.  12. 

XIII.  19 Mt.  xvii.  11. 

. 24.       -  -         -  -  Mt.  XV.  1. 

JAMES. 

I.  2. Mr.  X.  30. 

—  8.  -  -         -  -  D.  IV.  §  19. 

—  13.  -        -        -        -  Mt.  iv.  7.  2. 

—  20.  -  -         -  -  Mt.  vi.  33. 

II.  7. D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  13. 

—  19.  -         -         -         -  D.  VII.  P.I.  §  21. 

—  25.  -  -  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  14. 

III.  1.  -         .  -         .  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  12. 

—  6. L.  xii.  25.     D.  VI.  P.  II.  §1 

—  15.           _         -         .         .  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §21. 
V.  12.           -         -         -         -  Mt,  V.  37. 

—  16.  ....  L.vi.  12. 

—  17.  -         -  -         -  D.  IV.  §  25. 

—  19.  -         -        -        -  J.  i.  17. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED.  613 

I  PETER. 

L2. 20.  -  -  -  -  D.  IV.  §21. 

22.  -  -  -  -  J.  i.  17. 

11.6,7.  -  .  -  -  D.  XIL  P.  I.  §  15. 

—  24.  -  .  -  -  Mt.  viii.  17. 
111.5,6.  -  -  -  -  D.  VII.  P.L§6. 

16.  .  -  -  -  Mt.  V.  44.  ^   D.XI.  P.  IL  §6. 

20,21.  -  -  -  D.  IX.  P.  L§8. 

IV.  16.  -  -  - §  10. 

—  24.  -  -  -  -  Mt.  viii.  17. 

V.  4.  ....  D.  VII.  P.  II.  §4. 
^8.  -  -  .  -  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  3. 

—  12.  .  -  -  -  J.  i.  17. 

II  PETER. 
II.  1.  ....    D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  10. 

—  2.  -         -         -         -     J.  i.  17. 

—  4.  ....     D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  19. 

—  14.  .         *         .         .     Mr.  vii.  22. 

—  22.  -  -  -  -     J.  ix.  7. 

I  JOHN. 

L  8.  -         -        .         -     D.X.  P.  V.  §  12. 

II.  1.  -         -         -  -     J.  xiv.  16. 

—  21.  -         -  -  .     J.  i.  17. 

III.  7.  ....     D.  XII  P.  I.  §  31. 

—  9.  ...  -     D.  X.  P.  V.  §12, 

II  JOHN. 

2.  -         -         -         -     J.  i.  17. 

,,  III  JOHN. 

4.  -         -         -         -     J.  xvi.  2. 

8.  ....     J,  i.  7. 

9.  .         .         .         .     D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  II. 

JUDE. 
9,  10.     -        -        -         -     D.IX.  P.  n.§  1. 

REVELATIONS. 
I.  5.  -         -         -         -     J.  ix.  7. 

—  10.  -  -  -  .     J.  V.  2.  2. 


524  INDEX  OF  TEXT'S 

r  J.  i.  23. 

-  D.  V.  p.  IV.  §  13. 

-  J.  vii.  24. 

-  D.1X.P.I.§7.D.VIII.P.III.§16. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  16. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  7. 

-  P.II.  §21. 

-  D.  II.  P.  III.  §  5. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.III.§  16. 

-  J.  xvii.  11. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  III.  §  7. 

-  P.  IV.  §  14. 

-  D.  II.  P.I.  §3. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  8. 

-  L.  vi.  12. 

-  D.  V.  P.  II.  §  6. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  4,  5. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  13. 

-  D.  II.  P.  I.  §3. 

-  L.  vi.  12. 

-  Mt.  vi.  30. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  19. 

-  P.  V.  §  14. 

-  J.  i.  14.  2. 

-  Ibid. 

-  D.  V.P.  II.  §  tr. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  19. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  II.  §  11. 

-  P.I.§7.  ll.D.X.P.III.§9. 

-  L.  xxii.  36. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  3. 

-  P.  II.  §13. 

-  L.  xvi.  9.  3,  J.  i.  14.  -. 

TOBIT. 

II.  1.  .        .        .        _  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3. 

JUDITH. 

IX.  11.         -  -  -  -  L.  vi.  35. 

XII.  15.       .         -  -  -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  3. 

WISDOM. 

VII.  3.        -        -        -         -  D.  IV.  §  25. 

VIII.  19,  20.         -          -          -  D.  VI.  P.II.  ^  19. 
XI.  14 Mt.  V.  6. 

XVI.  13.     .  -         -  -  D.VI.  P.II.  §  17. 

. , —  25.,     -         -         -         -  J.  iv.  10. 


I.  12. 

- 

—  13. 

- 

—  16. 

- 

—  20. 

- 

II.  1.  8. 

12.  1 

18. 

—  5.  16. 

—  7.  - 

—  7.  11. 

21. 

22. 

17. 

29 

III.  1.7. 

14. 

—  4. 

- 

—  19. 

- 

IV.  8,  Sec.  - 

V.  1. 

—  2. 

—  8. 

—  13. 

VI.  6. 

—  8. 

—  14. 

" 

- 

_ 

VIII.  3. 

7. 

IX.  20. 

- 

_ 

X.  7. 

. 

XII.  12. 

- 

XIII.  6. 

- 

XIV.  6,  ' 

7.  - 

XV.  4. 

- 

XVI.  11 

. 

XVII.  7. 

- 

XIX.  17. 

,18. 

XX.  2. 

- 

14. 

_ 

XXI.  3. 

_ 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


525 


XIX.  26.     - 

EC 

CLESIASTICUS. 

-     L.  xvii.  21. 

XXIV.  31. 

- 

-     Mr.  vi.  40. 

XXV.  26.   - 

- 

-     Mt.  xxiv.  5 1 . 

XXVI.  7.    - 

. 

-     Mt.  V.  28. 

XXXII.  18. 

- 

-    L.  xviii.  7. 

I 

MACCABEES. 

11.21. 

. 

-     Mt.  xvi.  22.  3 

—  29. 

- 

-     Mt.  vi.  33. 

IV,  48. 

- 

-     L.  xvii.  21. 

—  59. 

- 

-     J.  X.  22. 

II 

MACCABEES. 

II.  29. 

- 

-     Mt.  XXV.  34. 

VII.  41.       - 

- 

-     J.  XV.  18. 

VOL.    IV. 


66 


INDEX 

OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


Ayoc.%i 
AyctXKMCi) 
Ayx'TTi/j  lua 
AyyeMi 
'Aytoi 

ra  ©£S 

Ayiov  TTvivfAM 

Ayvcc(po<i 
'Aojj5    - 
ASikix 
Ahxoi 

A3-iTea/ 
'Ai§e<rii 
Ai^6)  - 
Atriu   - 

Atuv 

sii  Tav  Aiavx 

CK   TH   AlUVOi 

A/«yv/o$ 
Ay.aCKai 

Akcc)iB-cc,  Axxv.%i 
Ajmjj  - 
Akhm  - 
Ak^iQou 
Ax^ii  - 
AAeTj;5  avo5  - 
*)'  A^3-£tx 


D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  14.   L.  viii.  : 

Mt.  XXV.  26. 

J.  viii.  56. 

J.  XV.  10. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §8— 16. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  14.  L.  iv.  34. 

Mt.  iii.  11.  2. 

L.  ii.  23.  2. 

Mt.  ix.  16. 

D.  VI.  P.  II. 

J.  vii.  18. 

Mt.  XXV.  26.  fi<i 

D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  3. 

Mr.  vii.  9. 

D.  IX.  P.  IV. 

J.  X.  18.  XV.  2. 

J.  xvi.  30. 

Mt.i.  11,  12. 

Mt.  xii.  32. 

J.  viii.  51. 

J.  ix.  32. 

L.  xvi.  9.  3, 

D.vi.  P.  IV.  §  ir. 

Mt.  xxvii.  29. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15. 

J.  viii.  43.  Mr.  iv.  24, 

Mt.  ii.  7. 

Mt.  iii.  4.  ^ 

Mt.  xviii.  6. 

J,  i.  17. 


528      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


A^x    - 
AAAayEv;;; 

AfAM^TtcC 

AyM^raXog     - 
AfA.ercciA.eXy>T6(; 

Af>L£TxvtrtTOi;    - 

AfMj))      -  -  . 

Af^ieivroi 

Af^iQXrs^ov   - 

Avcceciive^ 

AvuQasttm 

A.iu.yy.xtfi) 

AvxS-efMH 

AlOlKitlAM 

AvockXivu 

AvotXajtiJouva  - 

AvuXtj^K;         -       ■    - 

AvaMyia  r;;;  Trirewi 

AvocTri-^To) 

AvxTrXx^iu 

Avct?-xo-ii 

Avci^^o<Pn 

AvecToAjj 

Avoe^e^u 

Av(Jf£5  »hx<pei 

A^ijS'ov 

Av^is-riy^t 

AvB-vTTXToi; 

AvB^^UTTOKTOVOg 

Av3-§w7rai 

AvoifToi 

Ao,tt»5 
Avr«fAA«yft« 

AvTllTTelV 

AvTt       -  -  - 

Avrthiuxi 

AvriXeyetv 

A)irt7rx^e^j(^f)yML 

AvrXr^^x 

AvwS'fv 

Avxy^a 

ATrxXXxa-s-a 

ATreiB-av 

A-TfiXvitfii 

A.TCty,'* 


J.  V.  31. 

J.  vii.  28.  2, 

Mt.  XX.  23. 

L.  xvii.  18. 

J.  viii.  46.  2. 

Mt.  xxvi.  45.  2.D.XII.P.V.  §  12. 

D.  VI.  P.m.  §9. 

Ibid. 

Mt.  V.  18. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  17. 

Mt.  iv.  18. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §20. 

Mr.  viii.  24. 

L.  xxiv.  29. 

Mt.  XV.  4. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §5. 

Ibid. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §20. 

L.  ix.  51. 

D.  IV.  §  14. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  S. 

Mt.  xiii.  14. 

D.VI.P.1I.§  19.  Mt.  xxii.  23. 

D.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

Mt.  ii.  2.  L.  i.  78. 

D.  VI.  P.  II  §20. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  18. 

Mt.  xxiii.  23. 

Mt.  vi.  25. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17, 

J.  viii.  44. 

D,  XII.  P.  I.  §18. 

L.  xxiv.  25. 

Mt.  xxv.  26. 

Mr.  viii.  37.  ^. 

L.  xxi.  15. 

J.  i.  16. 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  3,  4.  S 

L.  xxi.  15. 

L.  X.  32. 

J.  iv.  11. 

J.  iii.  3. 

Mt.  xxvii.  5. 

L.  xii.  58. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15, 

L.  vi.  35. 

Mt.  vi.  2. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


529 


Av£x,^  -  -  - 

AtTI'TIoC.  .  -  - 

A7r;ro5  -  -  - 

'AvXiii;  -  .  - 

ATfa      -  -  -  - 

A7iroy^ce.(peT^ot,i 

A-TTO^VjfA^OO  -  -  - 

Attoix-ici,  airoticso-ix  - 

ATTOKd.'^l^-iJ/A.l 

ATTdX-X/Wy/li    -  -  - 

ATTojcoTrra       -  -  - 

ATox^vTrrca     -  -  - 

A-nroXvci)  .  -  _ 

A7rofMififA.vitv(<,%Tcc 

ATore^em        -  -  - 

A^as-£AAiy         -  -  - 

ATToraAos         _  .  - 
A5rj5-iipay»y«? 

A7rOT£[AJtCi)  _  -  - 

ATTorif^xtrB-xi 

ATTO^e^a/         _  -  - 

'A^TTer^a^       .  _  _ 
A^y«5   - 

Afyff<ay  -  -  - 

A^itex;  "xrocyoii  -  -  • 

A^ireu  -  -  - 

A^viov  -  -  -  - 

Af^csi^iiy  .  -  - 

AfT<     _  -  -  - 

Afros    -  -  -  - 

A^yjn    -  -  -  - 

TJJV    Af%!JV  _  -  - 

Af;^;<£ff£/?         -  -  - 

Af;^^(T£A<yv)}5    -  -  - 

A^^iT^u?\.i]iei 

A^^iCOfcx,         -  -  - 

A«;t;«4cevo?         ... 

Af;^jovr£5  -  -  - 

«(  Af;j;ovT£?  «tiT8 

A^^M*  ra  iioa-ftii  nsm,  kxi  e 

AcTKOi     -  -  -  - 

AT(rct,^tov  -  -  - 

ArfasTiJ  -  -  - 

AvXri     -  -  -  - 

AvTcc^xeiii        -  .  - 
Ai/Ta»c«TiZ)c<'(T»? 


-  Mr.  xiv.  41. 

-  Mr.  ix.  24. 

-  L.  xii.  46.  J.  XX.  27. 

-  Mt.  vi.  22. 

-  D.  XI.  P.I.§  15.Mt.xv.  i.L.x.50. 

-  L.  ii  .  1 .  = 

-  Mt.  xxi.  33. 

-  Mt.  i.  11,  12. 
.  Mt.  xvii.  11. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  I.  §3. 

-  Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

-  Mt.  xi.  25.  ^ 

-  Mt.  i.  19.  \  L.  vi.  37. 
.  Pr.  Mt.  §  26. 

-  Mr.  X.  19. 

-  J.  X.  36. 

-  D.VIII.P.III.  §  S.Mt.x.2.J.x.36. 

-  J.  ix.  22. 

-  Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

-  L.  ii.  L  ^ 

-  D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  20. 

-  J.  XX.  17. 

-  Mt.  xii.  36. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.I.  §  4,  5.  10. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  18. 

-  J.  xxi.  12. 

-  D.  Xn.  P.I.§  19. 

-  D,  V.  P.  IL§21. 

-  Mt.  ix.  18. 

-  Mt.  iv.  3.  2.  xxvi.  26.  L.  xiv.  15. 

-  Mt.  xii.  4.  2. 

.  Mr.  i.  1.  D.  III.  §  9. 

-  J.  viii.  25. 

-  Mt.  ii.  4. 

-  L.  xix.  2. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  6. 

-  Mr.  v.  17. 

-  L.  iii.  23. 

-  L.  xiv.  1. 

-  D.  VII.  P.  I.  §  7. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  8.      ^ 

-  Mt.  ix.  17. 

-  D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

-  L.  xi.  36. 

-  Mt.  xxvi.  3.  2. 

-  D,  IV.  §  18. 

-  D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  12. 


i30      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


A<Pcivtl^u 

_ 

- 

- 

D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  10. 

A0e^^ui 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  vii.  19. 

A<pievui  re  Tnevf^x 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  XX vii.  50. 

A<Pi>git<a 

- 

- 

- 

L.  vi.  22. 

Ax^iKXi 

' 

■ 

- 

D.  Xll.  P.  I.  §  14. 

B 
CD.  VIII.P.II.  §2.  Mt.iii.  11. 
\      XX.  22. 

Bx^i(rf/.x  ^ 

5  Mt.  XX.  22.  xxi.  25.  Mr.  vii.  3, 
\      4.  D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  2. 

'Bavrfj-fMi  5 

* 

Estorr/s-Jj? 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  iii.  1.2. 

Bct^oi  - 

- 

- 

- 

D.X.P.  II.  §4. 

'BoCB'XIIl^U 

_ 

- 

- 

Mt.  viii.  6. 

'ZdTo.vi^ii 

- 

- 

. 

Mt.  xviii.  34. 

BxTiXeia. 

- 

« 

- 

D.  V.  P.  1.  L.  xix,  12. 

'Qao-tXiVi; 

- 

- 

. 

Mt.  ii.  22. 

'BaciXiyjii 

- 

- 

- 

J.  IV.  46. 

BcirroXoyiu     - 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vi.  7. 

B^iXvyfJLtt.  ryfi  e^Tif^Mceui; 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  15.  2. 

B££A^e?»A 

_ 

- 

- 

Mt.  ix.  25. 

BiQxtov.  K.  i. 

- 

- 

- 

D.  II.  P.  I.  §3.  D.XII.P.I.§19. 

BioPias  yevce-eug 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.i.  l.D.XI.P.  I.  §18,19,20. 

B?M<!ipHf4.t» 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IX.  P.  II. 

BoTiB-sa 

_ 

- 

- 

Mr.  ix.  24, 

BoXii     - 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vii.  3. 

BaXivrm 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xxiii.  50. 

BaXevu 

- 

- 

- 

J.  xii.  10. 

Bm 

- 

- 

- 

J.  ii.  14. 

B^tacrii; 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vi.  19. 

BvS-t^oficct 

■ 

" 

" 

L.  V.  r. 

Fed^oipvXxKtov 

. 

_ 

_ 

r 

Mi\  xii.  41. 

Txfiso) 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  38. 

Tcc^ 

- 

- 

- 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §11. 

Fdri^ei  ci^yoi 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  36. 

Tievva   - 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  II. 

Teirm 

- 

- 

- 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 

Tmx    - 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xvi.  8.  3. 

TevsxXoyix 

- 

- 

- 

D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  IB. 

Tine-Kx, 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xiv.  6. 

Tevviif*,x  Tj;5  afUTTiXa 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxvi.  29. 

rfV0jlt£V05 

- 

- 

- 

J.  xiii.  2. 

revfl?      - 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  ix.  29. 

r„ 

id 

- 

- 

Mt.ii.  6.  V.  5.  2.  X.  5.  -.xxvii.45. 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


531 


TXaTTcc 


D.  V.  P.  IV.  §13. 

L.  ii.  2.  3. 

D.  IV.  §  21. 

D.  XII.  P.  IV.  §  9, 

J.  vii.^12. 

15. 

Mt.  ii.  4.  \  D.  XII.  P.  V.  §  1! 

J.  vii.  15. 

Mr.  xii.  19. 

J.  xxi.  7.  2. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

Mt.  V.  28.  J.  ii.  4, 


AxtfMVlOV 
AM/AjOVI^OIU.SVt)i 

AccifioviMOy,i     - 
Asijtrii; 

AslTTVOV 
ASKTI^XI/MUV      - 

Asv^^ov 

AeT-TTorr^i 

AsvTe^oTT^uroi 

Asm       -  -  - 

Aijvccpiev 

Al»   fjLiO-ii 

Aicd^oci^ai 
Aiat-^sMi 
Aia-^Ki] 
Atoe.icofA.ioii 

AlXKOVOi 

AiotXi-yofAMi 
Alctvoiycv  fA.iiT^ctv 
AixTre^cmt 
AixTzropx 
Aia'xTKxXixi  ^xtfAjovtuv 

Al^XTKXMi        - 
AiOXTKU 

Ai^xx>> 
Aio^xxfA-x 

AlOa^t-l    T)]fi.H6V 

AliTiji; 

Aix-xioi 

Atx,xtoc-vri} 
Aiy.xtoTvyy)  TH  ©£«    ' 

AtKXlOU 


D.  VI.  p.  I.  D.  XII.  P.  I.  S  19. 

§9,  10. 

§  2  1. 

L.  vi.  12. 

J.  xxi.  12. 

D.  VI.  P.I.  §22. 

D.  VII.  P.  L  §  7. 

Mt.  vi.  33. 

L.  vi.  1. 

Mt.  xviii.  18. 

D.  VIIL  P.  I.  §  4.  6.  10. 

L.  xvii.  11. 

D.  VI.  P.  IL  §  20. 

P.  L 

D.  V.  P.  III. 

Mt.  i.  11,  12. 

Mt.  XX.  26,  27. 

D.  VI.  P.  V.§  11,  12. 

L.  ii.  23. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  20. 

J.  vii.  35. 

P.  I.  §  20. 

D.  VII.  P.  II.  Mt.  xxiii.  8. 
D.  VI.  P.  V.  Mt.  xxviii.  19,  20. 
Mt.  vii.  28. 
D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §8. 
Mt.  xxiv.  24. 
Mt.  ii.  16.  2. 

CMt.   i.  19.  xxvii.  24,  D.  VI. 
I      P.  IV.  §  17. 
Mt  iii.  15.  vi.  1.  xxi.  32. 
Mt.  vi.  33. 
L.  vii.  29.  2.  35. 


532      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


AtKTVOV 

- 

- 

- 

. 

Mt.  iv.  18. 

Ai^orofA-ea, 

^'?C< 

a 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

At^OCO) 

- 

. 

- 

. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

Aiipv^oi 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IV.  §  19. 

Ataxu 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.   11.  23. 

Aox,e6> 

- 

- 

Mr.  X.  42. 

Aonoi; 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vii.  3. 

Ao|tf5      - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

Aoi  (^e|<ev  ru  Geu 

- 

- 

- 

J.  ix.  24. 

AaXti 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VII.  P.  I.  Mt.  XX.  26,  2r. 

0    A^XKUD    0 

f^iVK 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  8. 

A^OfMi 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.xii.  25. 

AvVClf^Mt 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  ii.  19.  2. 

H  AvvtiTCil  t 

.^av 

- 

- 

- 

J.  iii.  3.  2. 

5)  Avv(X,fA,ii 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxvi.  64. 

Au^ecc 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J.  iv.  10. 

Aa^ov 

" 

"■ 

" 

" 

Mr.  vii.  11,  12. 

'E<o^xirTi 

_ 

E 

Pr.  Mt.  §  14—20. 

EyyctT^t/A.vB'ei 

- 

- 

- 

D.  I.  P.  I.  §  3. 

Eyyi^etv 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xviii.  oS. 

Eyxetivix 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J.  X.  22. 

E^vctfX>K 

- 

- 

• 

- 

Mt.  ii.  22. 

E^ves    - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxi.  43.  2, 

E« 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  viii.    12.  xv.  44.  L.  xii.  49 

E«J!j5     - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J.  v.  o7^  38. 

Ei^u     - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  X.  32. 

Ei^iivij 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  X.  12. 

El^rjvoTTotoi 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  9. 

E<5         - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  vii.  30. 

£;;       - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  xii.  29. 

Eto-(pe^6) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vi.  13. 

Ek 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J.  iii.  25. 

Ex«T«vr««f;i^< 

»? 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

Ex?«AA£<v  ovef<,x  Trevij^ov 

- 

- 

L.  vi.  22.  2. 

Ejcyxf^i^o) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  38. 

Ey,oijfjLia) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  23. 

Ek^ikim 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xviii.  3. 

Ekiivoi; 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §31.L.  ix.  34. 

EycyccCKllV 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xviii,  1.  2, 

Ejcx.>i7jirici 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xviii.  ir. 

Ekkotttu 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  51. 

EkXhwm 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xvi.  9.  2. 

ExAfKTo; 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15.Mt.  xxii.  14, 

0   Ex-XcKTOi  TH  ©£« 

- 

- 

- 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

ExAuft) 

- 

- 

- 

. 

Mt.  ix.  36.  2.  XV.  32. 

E>CT(t^X^6> 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  iv.  7.  2. 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


533 


EKVo^svafuvov  ex.  ts  To/^aroi 

'EXiyxca          .  -  - 

EAfEft*  -           -  -  - 

EA5Jj,M,&»v           -  -  - 

EAeo<     -            .  -  - 

EAA>)V<j            -  -  _ 

£M;jv.'«-<«<        -  -  - 

"EifJI^XiTFU             -  -  - 

E|M.^«/(^<y              -  -  ■ 

Eictsr^ay-S-ev      -  -  - 

Ev          -           -  -  - 

Ev  ©£«                _  _  - 

El*  '■<"  otofjueri  S-eji    - 

Ev  OOCiTl             _  -  - 

'Evx^ero^           -  _  - 

Ev0i!!^l6>              _  -  - 

Ev^fitos             -  -  - 

EvovTx              ■  -  - 

Ei'o;^;oj              -  _  - 

EvTaeA/ic*          ■  _  - 

Evrx(pioi(^M      -  -  - 
EvroA;; 

EvT05      -              -  -  - 

Eviy3sr<av  ©f» 
E|<«/r£oft(«< 

E|£A.9'£<V               .  .  - 

E|(ST!(lt<                _  -  - 

E|oiJo5  ... 

E|»|M.aAay»/tM« 

^I'f'C'*'       _  -  - 

E^a  ri»(^a)         -  -  - 
'Ea^Tsj               ... 

E;r«yyeA(<«     -  •-  . 

E^asv&;              _  _  - 

E7revd't/r>i5        .  .  - 

ETti^eal^M       -  -  - 

E^«  ra  aura   -  -  - 
E;r<  T»  eve|(A«r< 

E^<bs<A^«c»          -  .  - 

E'^i^SAo?          -  -  - 

E7r(y£.'fl5            -  -  - 
ET(yv»5  Tta  7rvev/4,ciTi  xvra 

ETri^riTsai         _  -  . 

E7r'B^U,£6>           _  -  . 

E7r(;4«Ti»^i«Tas 

EcTfys-fa?  ... 

ETrtTKlTTTof^Ml 

VOL.   IV.  67 


-  Mt.  iv.  4. 

-  J.  viii.  46. 

-  Mt.  ix.  36. 

-  D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  5. 

-  Mt.  ix.  13. 2. 

-  Mr.  vii.  29. 

-  D.  1.  P.  ].  §  6. 

-  Mr.  viii.  24. 

-  Mr.  ix.  25. 

-  Mt.  ii.  1 6. 

-  J.  i.  15.  ^ 

-  D.XI.P.  I.  §  7,8.  L.i.  17.  xvii.  21. 

-  J.  iii.  21. 

-  J.  xvii.  11. 

-  Mt.  iii.  11. 

-  Mt.  i.  19.  XXV.  26. 

-  D.  VL  P.  II.§  23. 

-  Mt.  vii.  15.  2. 

-  L  xi.  41. 

-  Mt.  V.  21,  22. 

-  Mt.  XV.  9. 

-  J.  xix.  40, 

-  Mt.  XV.  9. 

-  L.  xvii.  21. 

-  L.  i.  75. 

L.  xxii.  31. 

-  Mr.  ix.  29. 

-  Mr.  iii.  21.  *. 

-  Pr.  Mr.  §2.  L.  ix.  31. 

-  Mt.  xi.  25. 

-  Mt.  xxvi.  63.  Mr.  V.  7. 

-  L.  xxii.  25. 

-  Mt.  xxvi.  5. 

-  D.  XIL  P.  I.  §  14. 

-  L.  iv.  39. 

-  J.  xxi.  7. 

-  Mt.  V.  44. 

-  Mt.  xxii.  34. 

-  Mt.  xxiv.  5. 

-  Mr.  xiv.  72. 

-  D.VI.P.  I  §6. 

-  P.  IL  §  6,  7. 

-  Mr.  ii.  8. 

-  L.  iv.  42. 

-  L.  xvi.  21. 

-  Mt-.  XV.  4. 

-  Mt.  vi.  11. 

-  Mt.  XXV.  36.  L.  vii.  16. 


)34      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASEb 


E7nrfe<p&>  -  -  - 

ETTITlf^Xa  -  -  _ 

Evrir^oTTog  -  -  . 

E7ri<?eiiT}ta  -  -  - 

ETTH^ccviog  -  -  _ 

Ettm      -  -  -  _ 

^^yoi^e/^ccti  -  -  - 

Efjj^05  _  .  . 

E^i0iov  _  _  _ 

E^^if^/^ivai  -  -  _ 

E^urao)  -  -  - 

E'^KvXfJLaoi  -  -  _ 

'E^-u^    -  -  -  ~ 

Erct^oi  -  -  _ 

Et/j«yyeA(9V  -  -  - 
Ei/sey)'£Pi(^£<y 

E^ctoyfPKs-Jjs  -  -  - 

Evooxix  -  -  . 

Ei'A£tis);5  -  _  - 

0  EfAoy^jro?  -  -  _ 

EtiAsye^  -  _  _ 

Ei'Aoy;;To5  -  -  _ 

Evx'X^iTea  -  -  _ 

Enx;  S^xvxTis  -  -  - 

■         Tjirs  -  -  _ 


L.  xxii.  32. 

Mt.xvi.  22.2.  Mr.  ix.  25. 

D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  4. 

L.  xxiii.  54. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  6,  7. 

J.  xii.  49. 

Mt.  V   11. 

D.  X.  P.V.  §M2. 

Mr.  i.  3.  D.  XII.  P.  V.  §  12. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

Mt.  ix.  36.  2. 

CD.  V.P.XII.  §12.P.IV.  §  13. 

I      Mt.  xi.  3. 
J.  xvi.  30. 
Mt.  ix,  36.  2. 
L.  V.  2. 

D.  XII.  P.I.  §  U. 
D.  V.  P.  II. 
D.  VI.  P.  V.  §  14. 

§  16. 

L.  ii.  14.  -. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §  3. 

Mr.  xiv.  61. 

Mt.  xiv.  19. 

Mt.  V.  3. 

Mt.  xiv.  19. 

L.  i.  5. 

Mt.  xxvi.  38. 

Mt.  i.  25.  2. 

L.  xxii.  51. 


Zy.Moo} 

Zii^xvtx 
Zay^ic} 
Zuv  ua'ap 


H>llKtC6 


L.  vi.  15. 
Mt.  xvi.  26. 
Mt.  xiii.  25. 
L.  v.  10. 
J.  iv.  10. 

H 

L.  ii.  4.  2. 

D.VIII.P.IIL§ir.Mt.ii.6. 
L.  xii.  25. 
Mt.  xxii.  16. 


© 

Mt.  iv.  15.  2. 
L.  V.  9. 
J.  xix.  40. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


535 


0£Aft»    -  -  - 

OvyxT^iov 


IfftfV       - 

lx,xvov  e?-t 
lAe&i?  a-ot 

'hoc 

iaSxifi 


K.«,9'£|s!5 
KjuB-ivastv 

KxB-iiyilTTK 

Km       - 

V    KoKVJJ  ^IxB^Kil 
Kolt^Oi   O-VKUV 

K-XjcoMyiu 
KxKDTroietii 
Kmkoi;   - 
¥~ocXio;AMl  f^sycti 

Kccra   - 

KxrxQo^?!  y.oo-fiii 

KxTxyy£M.a> 

KxTXy-Xivoi^xi 


5  Mt.  xvi.  24.  L.  xiii.  31.  J.  vii. 

I      17.  xvii.  24. 
Mt.  XXV.  34. 
Mt.  xii.  4. 
D.  VLP.L  §8. 
L.i.  3.  3. 
Mt.  vi.  19. 
Mt.  xi.  17. 
D.  XII.  P.I.  §  19. 

I 

D.  VI.  P.  L§  22.  J.  i.  ll.v.  18. 

L.  i.  9. 

L.  xxii.  38. 

Mt.  xvi.  22.  ^ 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  2.  J.  xiii.  4. 

CMt.  i.  22.  2.  XX.  31.Mr.  V.  23. 

I      J.  xvi.  2. 
Ml",  xiv.  56. 
L.  xi.  2 1 . 
L.  XX.  13. 
Pr.  Mt.  §  15. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

K 

J.  XV.  2. 

L.  ii.  22. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV.  §3. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

L.  i.  3.  ^ 

D.  VI.  P.  IL  §  23. 

Mt.  xxiii.  8. 

Mt.  vi.  11. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §3. 

Mt.  V.  19.  ^. 

D.  V.  P.  III. 

J.  V.  35.  2. 

Mr.  xi.  13. 

Mt.  XV.  4. 

Mr.  iii.  4. 

Mt.  xxi.  41.XXV.  26. 

Mt.  V.  19.  '*. 

Mt.  xix.  24. 

D.  IV.  §  23,  24. 

Mt,  Title.     J.  ii.  6.  ^. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  ^  20. 

D.  I.  P.  I.  §  14.  N.  Mt.  XXV.  34. 

D.  VI.P.  V.  §  15. 

D.  VIII.  P.  HI.  ^  3. 


536      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 

^!r"    '       ■       ■       -    ^i'--^vi.i6.3.j.viii.  n. 

KxTxX'juA       -  .  _  -Tii72 

KxrxXvc,  ....      ^jj    '^    \^' 

Kxtx.x.^,us,t;^^       .  .  .  ^j^    ^^    ^^ 

Kxrx^^^^,    -  -  -  -  Ibid. 

Kxrx.r<:a>      ....  ^j^.    j_   ,g^ 

iUr^rr^v*r<;  .  .  .  Mt.  viii.    20.=. 

Kxrscx^ouc,    -  -  -  .  D.   VI.  P.  II.   S  6. 

^'■'■^*'  -  -  -  -  L.  iv.  42.  3. 

f^"^'"'  ■        -        -        -  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

^''"''-  -         -  -  -  L.i.  69,70,  ri. 

f^'^*"'*'  -  -         -  -  L.  XV.  16.  2. 

Ki^*A*;o«  ....  Mr.  xii.4. 

i:""^'"^"     .-       -       -       -    D.  VI.P.  V.  §2. 

K^.-.....  -  .  .     D.  VI.  P.  V.  ^  2^10. 

^"^  ■  -  -  -  -      Mt.  xii.  40.      ^ 

Jf'*        -        -         -         -     D.  XI.  P.  II.  §  6. 

^■^"^  -  -  -  -     Mt.  xxii.  14. 

s;;r  :  :   ■   ■  ?-xii.p.i.§i.. 


I'    ^ 


„  TV  ^Ir.  vi.  40. 

^r""  :    :    -  -  i'v,„.p.i,5,o. 

-  -  Mr.  vu.  19. 

xir.    :    :    ■  -  J-,  "•.!■•  iM'^- 

,,,>'-                               '  ■  ^^^-  vu,  2. 

K^A^yr.:.^    ....  ^^^    J    ,g    2 

^^^'*"         .-          -          -  -  Mt.  xxiv.  22. 

kIS.^?*^.          :  :  ]>•  VI.  P.  II.  §19,  20 


V.  2.  2. 


„  >  Mr.  vu.  11,  12 

I.  i>lt.  sxvu.  6. 

■      -Mt.  xii.  44 

w.  :    :    ■    -  ^,-"M.«- 

K,«^.^.  .     .     ;     ■  ^)^,  •  --/'  10. 

K^^_,^  ^"   ^x.  20. 

f?*'*^^  -  -  -  -     L.i.  3.  4 


Mr.  xii.  40. 
Mr.  xvi.  1 6. 


icn.,r  "  "  "  L.XXl.  19. 

kIv    :    ■  ■  -  D.iiMz. 

IT.  '  "  -^it.  XV.  30,  31. 

-  -  -  D.  VII.  p.  I.  Mr.  xii.  2.  9. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


537 


KMU.IK«i 


D.  IV.  §  17. 


Astf>Lcectu 

AxTsitx 

AxT^evu 

e-'j  Aeyei? 

Auraeyiot 

AsTTOf 

AsVKOi 

Alr.Tr,^     - 
Ai.7oosA£« 
Ai.ci  Tt/tpetceti* 
A.yci   - 

AolTTSt 

Ana 

Avxio% 

Avoi 


CD.VI.  P.  V.  §11,  l2.L.i  69, 
I      70,  71.  iv.  41.  2.  J,  sii.  49. 
Mt.  viii.  17. 
L.  xxiii.  1 1. 
J.  xvi.  2.  -. 
D.  XI.  P.  L  §  12. 
Mt.  xxTii.  11. 
D.  XI.  P.  L  §  12. 
D.  VIIL  P.  I.  §10. 
L.  xxiii   1  I. 
D.  XI.  P.  XL  §  6. 
Mt.  xxi.  35. 
Mt  xii.  20. 

Mt  iv.  4.  L.  i.  2.  J.  i.  1. 
L.  iv.  22.  2. 
Mt.  xxvi.  45. 
J.  ix.  7. 
Mt.  v.   15. 
19.  xviii.  18. 


Mxyo*>jm 

M.*'/oi 

hixK-x^ioi 

M.XK^Xf 

TAxxfioiitu-iu  - 

M.xx^6Bvf^x  - 

M-XUM^x  Tr^  etaix.txc 
Mxf(:efif 

'M.xeriieiit  Till 
Miyii-xisi 

M.=-7vu 

hit^lf*JXU 

Msrx    - 
MrrxusXauM 

M.rrxitcv 
hisTeixiCtx,  f^sToixJet 

Msreof  Tt^iu^ 
Mtftt.  MrTiys. 


M 
!Mt.  xxvii.  56. 
Mt.  ii.  1. 

Ml.  xxviii.  19,  20. 
Mt.  V.  3.  xiii.  16. 
Mt.  viii   30. 
L.  xviii.  7. 
L,  viii.  15. 
L   xvi.  9. 
Mt.  xi.  29. 
D.  IX.  P.  IV.  §  14. 
L.  iv.  22. 
D.  VII.  P.I.  §  7. 
J.  ii.  10. 

Mt.  iii.  7.  xvii.  22. 
Mt.  xxiv.  il. 
Mt.  vi.  25. 
L.  si.  7. 

D.  VI.  P.m. 

Ibid. 

Mt.  i.  11,  12. 

J.,  ii.  6. 

D.  IV.  ^  14. 

Mt.  vii'l5.  ^ 

Mt.  iv.  6. 

Mt.  xii.  22.  J.  iv.  29. 


538      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


.Mv*      - 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §  10. 

Mio-ea) 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xiv.  26. 

Mvtff^ 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  8. 

M)i>](r%y(X,i  £A£»5 

- 

- 

- 

L.  i   54,  55.  *.  ^ 

MoS'ioi 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.I.  §6.  Mt.v.  15. 

Mo<;UscA<5 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  39. 

Moix,itja 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  28. 

Mj/Ajj    - 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xviii.  6. 

MwAe?  a4x«5    - 

- 

- 

- 

Ibid. 

Mv^ov  - 

- 

_ 

- 

Mt.  xxvi.  7. 

Mv^il^lOV 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IX.  P.  I.  Mt.  xiii.  11. 

Ma^e    - 

- 

- 

- 

Pr.  Mt.  §  25. 

M6)^oMyix 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  36. 

M»^e5 

Mt.  xi.  25.  3. 
N 

No^etf  ;jvo?  I 

Mt.  ii.  2  3. 

Nct^^yf  06(95  i 

N«<,  y«<          - 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  37. 

Nflj«s     - 

- 

- 

- 

L.  i.  9. 

N«^J<J5  !r<r/>Mj 

- 

- 

- 

Mr,  xiv.  3. 

Nixvta-Koi 

. 

- 

- 

cl       2 

Near;}? 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xix.  20. 

N;^<ov 

. 

- 

- 

Mt.  xi.  25.  3. 

N<^-r« 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  vii.  3,  4.  J.  ix.  7. 

Nfl£&»      - 

_ 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiv.  15.  3. 

Hif^l^OfMCl 

- 

- 

- 

L.  iii.  23.  2. 

N0/UJXO5 

- 

- 

- 

D.  XII.  P.  V.  §  12. 

Ne(it«^«iJ«t5-Jt«A«5 

- 

- 

- 

Ibid. 

Na,ct«5   - 

■ 

" 

" 

J.  x.  34. 

EvMv    - 

- 

- 

- 

s 

L.  xxii.  52.  ~.  Mt.  vi.  30. 
0 

'0,   ^ ,   To 

. 

- 

_ 

D.X.P.V.  §2.Mt.i.  6.V.  15 

OlKlX      - 

- 

- 

. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

OlK0^0U£6> 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IV.  §  18. 

Ootovo^s?  Ts;5  ctS'lKlcCi 

- 

- 

L.  xvi.  8.  2. 

e  Ootos  r«  ©£4^ 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  4. 

OiKHfJLer/i 

- 

- 

- 

L.  ii.  1. 

OlX.T(l^6> 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  ix,  36. 

OXiyovi?-o<i      - 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vi.  30.  5. 

OXiyo-^vy/xi  • 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.v,  3.  3. 

'Ojtte/a5r«.>,}? 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IV.  §  25, 

OfMiuf^uit 

- 

- 

- 

J.  v,  37,  38. 

'  OfM><P^ovi<; 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IX.  P.  III.  §4. 

Ovotfiov 

- 

- 

- 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 

Ovei^f^u 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  11. 

OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


539 


OvofMC 

Ovog  oiXeTyii     - 

O^eivi)  - 
OpmQu 

'OTt 

Ov,  a   - 

'Ov  evsKiv 

Ovcti      - 
Ovhv  i?-iv 
Ovx,trt 

Ov^uvai 

'Ov70i 

0<peXyi(JU)C 

O'^e  - 
O-^ict  - 
O-^ig  - 


Tlctyii 
UccS-ei 

TlxiS'lov  ».  £     - 
Tletig     - 

HaXiyyeye'^iiit 
YlavH^yog 

Hx^x,  - 

Ylcc^x^styfA-oiril^a) 


Mt.  xviii.  6. 

J.  xvii.  11. 

Mt.  xviii.  6. 

Mt.  xvi.  24.  ^ 

Mt.  xii.  14. 

D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  7. 

Mr.  i.  3. 

Mt.  xxvi.  63.  Mr.  v.  7, 

J.  xiv.  11. 

D.  VI.  P.  IV. 

CD.  X.  P.  III.  §4.  P.  V.  §  11. 

I      L.  i.  45.  -.  vii.  47. 
Mt.  V.  37. 
L.  iv.  18. 

D.LP.  I.§14.N.D.X.P.II.  §8,9. 
L.  vi.  24,  25,  26. 
Mt.  xxiii.  16.   18. 
Mr.  XV.  5. 
D.  V.  P.  I.§  4.  ■ 
D.  III.  §  23.  Mt.  xii.  24. 
Mt.  vi.  12. 
D.  VI.  P.  I.  §8. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 
Mt.  xxviii.  1. 
Mt.  xiv.  23. 
J.  vii.  24. 

n 

Mt.  v.  29. 

D.  IV.  §  25. 

D.XII.P.  I.§  11.  19.  J.xiii.  33. 

Mt   ii.  16.  2. 

D.  V.  P.  III. 

Mr.  XV.  44. 

L.  xii.  25. 

D.XII.P.  I.  §22.  Mt.  xix.  28, 

L.  ii.  7.  2. 

D.  IV.  §  18. 

J.  iv.  10. 

J.  xvii.  5, 

Mr.  iii.  21.  2. 

L.  xxiv.  29. 

Mt.  xiii.  3. 

Mt.  i.  19.  2. 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §21. 

Mt.  xxvi.  16. 

L.  V.  26. 

Pr.  Mt.  §  8. 


540      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


Uoi^a^ni;         -  -  - 

TloiPciTii^eia      -  -  . 

Ylx^otf^ta,        -  _  _ 

Ucttr^x             -  -  - 

Udi       -            -  -  - 

UxT^iiV              -  -  - 

Tlar^K;             -  .  . 

n<^     -         .  .  - 

Tleivocu             _  _  - 

TlstPctl^o)           -  -  . 

o  Uei^a^av       -  -  . 

IlifjuTru             -  _  - 
IleTr^x'/f.uuv  ctvru    - 

Tle^xv               -  _  _ 

Hs^ot,rr;<;            -  -  - 

Ht^t^otXXu       -  - 

Tis^lotxai  -  _  - 

Ue^Krreva        ■  -  - 

TIs^tTFov           -  -  - 

Yll^lTdfJUfl            -  -  - 

TflC  rieT^u^t!  -  -  - 

IIsj;;;;!/?  -  -  - 

nivxKiaiov  -  -  - 

Yli^eva  .  _  _ 

Uirii    -  -  -  - 

Il<re5    -  -  -  - 

ITAf/ov  -  -  - 

riAf/avf;  _  -  _ 

UXeove^icc  -  -  - 

n?iii^o0e^£M  -  -  - 

IlXr,^oca  .  -  - 

U^.viirio')  _  -  - 

nXoixetov  -  -  - 

IlAo/av  -  -  - 

IheviAX,  Ylviu 

XKxB'Ct^ToV ,  TfOVtl^OV 

Uvev/Mircc  -  .  _ 

e»  UvsvfMtToi  yeysnTjf/.BVoi   - 

notea    -  -  -  . 

n«if^»iv6>  -  -  _ 


D.  ni.§  23.  Mt.  xxvi.  16. 

J.  xiv.  16. 

L.  i.  3. 

J.  xix.  14. 

J.  XV.  20. 

J.  xvi.  25. 

D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §  3,  4.  J.  xix.  14. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8. 

D.  IV.  §25. 

J.  iv    44. 

Mt.  xiv.   13. 

Mt.  V.  6. 

Mt.  xvi.  1. 

D.  VI.  P.  I.  §4. 

J.  X.  36.  Mt.  vi.  13. 

L.  xxiii.  15. 

Mt.  iv.  15. 

Pr.  Mt.  §  15. 

Mr.  xiv.  51.  ■ 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 

Mt.  v.  20. 

47.  2. 

D.  VIII.  P.  II.  §2. 
Mr.  i.  28. 
J.  i.  43. 
Mt.  xiii.  5. 
Mt.  x.  10. 
L.  xii.  25. 
D.XII.  P.I.  §  19. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  15.  J.  ii.  22.  2. 
D.  IV.  §  14. 

Mt.  xxiii.  23.  2.  L.  xviii.  8. 
J.  XX    27. 
Mt.  xii.  41,  42, 
Mt.  xxi.  36. 
Mr.  vii.  22. 
L.  i.  1. 

Mt.  i.  22.  V.  17.  2. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  19. 
L.  v.  2. 

5D.VIII.P.III.  §  10,  U.D.VI. 
I     P.  II.  §23.  Mr.ii.  8.  J.  iii.S, 
D.  VI.  P.  I.  §  11. 
D.  XII.  P.  IV.  §9. 
J.  iii.  8. 

D.  III.  §7.D.  X.P.  V.  §  12. 
J.  xxi.    16. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


5U 


ETsAAai 

- 

■      . 

- 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §  8.  J.  xii.  42. 

Tio^veXtog 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D  VL  P.  IV.  §  3. 

IlflVIJ^O? 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt  V.  37.  2.  vi.  2.5.  XXV.  26. 

0  no»jj«os 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VI   P.  I.  §  4.  8. 

Tiooyiix 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  32. 

n^xTiot 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  vi.  -10. 

n^  arret 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  iii.  13. 

n^ctvS^v/Mi 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  3.  3. 

H^itCvts^iov 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xxii.  66. 

Ufo 

_ 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IV.  §20. 

n^oSxriKu 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J.  V.  2.  2. 

n^oyivMT-KU 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IV.  §  21. 

n^oSui 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  in.§  23.  Mtxxvi.  l§. 

U^oi^eu 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D   IV.  §  21. 

n^oo^ocofM,t 

- 

- 

- 

- 

§20. 

nf««    - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xix.  9. 

ITfos  ^'-utg 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  vi.  3.                      ^ 

ITj-es  TO 

- 

'- 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  28.  2. 

n^erairm 

- 

-' 

- 

- 

L.  xvi.  20. 

U^oTevx>} 

- 

"- 

- 

- 

L,  vi.  12. 

U^orx-vna 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  ii.  2.  2. 

U^orXxSof^Bvai 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xvi.  22. 

n^oipxTig 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxiii.  14. 

n§o0vr)}g 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vii.  1 5.  Mr.  vi.  15. 

n§e<pi',Tev6} 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  xxvi    68. 

n^UTOK^UTtX 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  6. 

n^uroi 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  ii.  2.  xiv.  1.  J.  XV.  18. 

Jl^oToroxot; 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  i.  25. 

YlTe^vyie)!  m 

■  If^xna 

- 

- 

Mt.  ix.  20. 

IlTt/ev    - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  iii.  12. 

Wray/>'> 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xvi.  20. 

Tlra^ot  TO  7niV(*/x,Ti 

- 

- 

Mt.  V.  3.  '. 

Uvyf^ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mr.  vii.  3,  4. 

Tlv>iXi  ahi 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  VI.  PH.  §  17. 

Ila^uFti 

- 

- 

- 

- 

D.  IV.  §  23.  N. 

Vx<^Qi  - 

^ 

. 

. 

. 

P 

D.  VII.  P.  n. 

p»f^fl« 

- 

- 

- 

- 

L.  xxii.  52.  2. 

Vxtvu       'l 
Vxm^M  5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  iii.  11. 

Vxy.x    - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Pr.  Mt.  §  25. 

Txxoi;  xyvx^i 

9V 

. 

- 

- 

Mt.  ix.  16. 

Tr,fix    - 

- 

- 

- 

-' 

CD.  LP.  L  §  14.  N.  D.  X.  P, 
?      II   §  9.  Mt.  iv.  4. 

—  ee^yav 

- 

. 

- 

- 

Mt.  xii.  36. 

VlTTTU 

- 

. 

- 

- 

Mt.  ix.  36.  2. 

VvOfiXl 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Mt.  vi.  13.  2. 

VOL.    IV. 

68 

542      INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 

X 

'Zci'^Qxi  ....  Mt.  xii.5. 

i:,ctQQci.rov        -         -  -         _  Ibid. 

'Zayyiyyj  -  -  -  -  Mt.  iv.    18. 

XctTTooi  -         .         -         .  Mt.  vii.  17. 

:s«?| D.I.P.l.§ii.i4.N.N.J.vm.ls. 

SocTxva^  -  -  -  -  D.  VI.  P.  1.  §  3.  5,  8,  9. 

Sf^rtM?  -  -         -         -  Mt.  xxviii.  1. 

Ssjftfjov  -  -  -  .  Mt.  xxiv.  30. 

Stefffls  -  -  -  -  L.  i.   15. 

I^KuvS'xM^a)    -         .         .         .  Mt.v.29.xiii.21.57.D.XI.P.I.§22 

2)4fl{v^i!«A«v       -  -  -  .  ]VIt.  xiii.  41. 

2'")»'?  -         -         -         -  Mt.  xvii.  4.  L.  xvi.  9.  3. 

"Zy-m-^HVicc    -  -         .         -  D.  VIII.  p.  II.  §  3. 

ILKtjyixa  -  -  -  -  J.  i.   1 4.  2. 

'Zx.ix  B-uyara  -  -  _  Mt.  iv.  1 6. 

'Zx.Xii^ofM^hoe,  -  -  -  D.  IV.  §  22. 

'2x.?ii]^vYu        -         -         -         .  Ibid. 

2y^Ao%;.         -         -         .         .  Mt.  vii.  3. 

2»«Aov  ....  Mt.  V.  29. 

i:o<ptx  Mya    '  -  .  -  D.  I.  P.  I.  §  10. 

^"(Poc,  -         -  -  .  -  Mt.  xi.  25.  3. 

l^-TreKUXccru^  -  _  .  Mr.  vi.  27. 

SxA«sy;c»<^oiM<56<        ...  Mt.  ix.  36. 

251-Ajjv  -  -  -  -  D.  IV.  §  24. 

2^8^05  -         -         -         -  Mt.  xiii.   19. 

'Lttv^k;  ...  -  Mt.  xvi.  9,  10. 

ILrxry,^  ....  D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §8. 

Sras^foS  -  -  -  -  Mt.  X.  38.    N. 

liTccv^od)         ....  Mr.  XV.  25. 

XrofA.xxo'i      -         -         -         -  Mr.  vii.   19. 

2T^«T^yo<  r»  'le^H    .  -  .  L.  xxii.  52. 

'Lr^icpM  -         -  _  .  Mt.  xviii.  3. 

liT^eovvvf^i       _  .         .         _  Mr.  xiv.  15. 

:Ev  Xiyeii        .  -  -  .  Mt.  xxvii.  11, 

'Lvyx^MiA.at  -  _  .  _  J.  iv.  9 . 

2i;;^o<?;«m<«    -  -  .  .  D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  16. 

i:vxo<pct.vrr.,i     -  .  -  -  D.  XI.  P.  I.  §  18. 

'Lvf^QaXXu      -  -  .  -  L.  ii.  19. 

'ZvfA.'XXr.^ovTB-ctl  -  -  .  L.  ix.  51. 

^vf^TTocriev       .  -  .  _  Mr.  vi.  40. 

i:vnS-^,oy         ...  -  .  D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  18. 

Emras  ....  Mt.  xi.  25.  3. 

:svv^Ki,       -       .       .       .  D,  V.  p.  III.  §  1. 

Sw^^j  .        .        .        -  Mt.  xiii.  19. 

XvvoS'iot  -         -  .  -  L.  ii.  44. 

St-vr£Af/«       ....  Mt.  xiii.  39. 


OCCASIONALLY  ILLUSTRATED. 


54? 


Mr.  vi.  10. 
Mr.  x'iv.  3.  2. 
J.  iii.  o^. 

D.  IX  P.  in. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  § 

L.  ii.  30,  31. 


TstA^vTav 


-rvi  xx^a'ix 


Tti^eu   - 

T«  -  - 

ToKOi      - 

T^ayiKOi 
T^oi^j)  - 
Tvipojicivov  >uvo)i 


D.  VIII.  P.I.  §  8.  10. 

Mt.  V.  3.  3.  D.  Ii.  P.  II.  §2. 

Mt.  xi.  29.  2. 

Mt.  V.  3.  3.  D.  II.  P.  II.  §  2. 

D.  VI.  P.II.  §  19. 

T~7. §«• 

J.  xm.  33.  D.  XII.  P.I.  §  19. 

D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  11. 

Mt.  xiii.  55. 

Mt.  X.  23.  3. 

Mt.  V.  46. 

Mt.  ix.  9. 

J.  xi.  39. 

Mt.  xiv.  1. 

J.  XV.  20. 

Mr.  viii.  37. 

D.  XII.  P.I.  §  15.  J.xii.  26.* 

Mt.  XXV,  27. 

Mr.  xii.  34.  J.  xxi.  12.  3. 

Mt.  xxiv.  15. 

D.  IV§17. 

D.  VII.  P.  I.  §7. 

Mt.  x.  10.  4, 

L.  xii.  25. 

Mt.  xii.  20. 


Yyieict 
'Yact)^  ^6>v 

0    T/«?  Ts  xvd^ajrii    - 
r;;?  onroXsioi  x.,  I 

—  A^?.<^  - 

AlX^O>.ii 

Tio(  m  vv/^ipaivoi 

Yfiveu 

TTTsiyu 

TTTX^^aVTX,      - 

Y'TT-zi^eTrs 

Y-7700yif/Mrci      - 


D.  X.  P.  II.  §  4. 

J.  iv.  10.  2. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  13. 

D.  VI.  P.II.  §  1. 

D.  V.  P.  IV.  §  14. 

Mt.  xiv.  33. 

D.  VI.  p.  I.  §  3.  P.  II.  §  1. 

Mr.  ii.  19. 

Mt,  xxvi.  30. 

J.  xii.  11. 

L.  xi.  41. 

Mt.  xxvi.  58.  2.L.i.2.ii.l4.iv.20. 

Mt    X.  10.  3 

D.  VI.  P.  II.  §  6. 


344  INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES,  &c. 


'Yiptrti 


4>«A£05 


Mt.  xxiv.  51.  ^  D.  III.  §24. 

L   viii.  15. 

D.  X.  P.  V.  §  9. 

J.  xix.  29. 

L.  ii.  14. 

J.  iii.  14. 

L.  xiv.  15. 
L.  ii.  7. 
L.  i.  3.  '. 

D.  VII.  P.  II.  §  11. 
D.  XII.  P.  I.  §  Ik 
D.  XI.P.  I.§  18. 
Pr.  Mt.  §  15. 
D.  IX.  P.  III.  §4. 
Mt.  xxiii.  5. 
Mt.  viii.  20. 


Xet^ti    - 

XcCOiTOU 

XiXix^X"'^ 
XtruD 
X«/v<| 
XoAj)     - 

X^eix    - 
X^yjfA^unZ^u 

X^iroi 
Xto^eu 
Xa^tov 


\rv)(,ti 


Mt,  xxviii.  9.  3, 

J.  xvii.  13. 

L.  xix.  43. 

L.  ii.  40.  J.  i.  17. 

L.  i.  28. 

D.X  P.V.§7. 

D.  VIII.  P.  III.  §  17. 

§  2. 

D.  VIII.  P.  I.  §4. 
Mt.  xxvii.  34. 
Mt.  vi.  30. 
L.  viii.  15. 
Mt  ii.  12. 
D.  V.  P.  IV, 
Mt.  xix.  13. 
J.  iv.  5. 

Mt.  vii.  15. 
D.  III.  §  24. 

5  D.  X.  P.  V.  §  6.  Mt.  X,  39.  xvi. 

I      26.  L.  xiv.  26. 


ft 
Mt.  viii.  13.  xxiv.  36-. 
L.  iii.  23. 


END  OF  VOLUMB  FOURTH* 


\. 


Date  Due 

i/i  1      '40 

fACAllJY 

' 

^ 

Hi 


1 


BS2555.C187  1811V.4  , 

The  four  Gospels :  translated  from  the 

Princeton  Theological  Semlnary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00048  5575 


